Skip to main content

Full text of "Reply to Archdeacon Farrar's excursus in eternal hope [microform]"

See other formats




,,/■■?• .  •■■ 

ERRATA.       .V 

Page  30.  line  2,  for  "  preisumptive,"  read  "  presumptuous." 

31  "24    "    "Judacio,"         •    "     "  Judaioo." 

32  "    3     '•    "Aut,"  ■     "      "Ant." 
"  considering  " 
"  young  ruler" 

47    "  22,  after  "  blasphemous  "  supply  "  thought." 
51     tmnsjx)se  first  and  second  paragraphs. 

"     40     "  22     " 
"     45     "  21     " 

"      "  consideration." 
"      "  lawyer." 








.;,3  '■„  .,v  •• 



..■:      •    v^r-- 


'A   '-  ■; 

W.  HENDERSON,  M. A.,  T.C.D.,      * 


»'  liir  ,    ^ii- 

MONTREAL :       " 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Parliament  of  Canada,  in  the  year  1884,  in 
the  Office  of  the  Minister  of  Agriculture,  by  Dawson  Brothers, 



^^  PREFACE.  :   . 

''-'-'-'    .    ■■  ■  ,     "  --*.;■'  "■  ■   ".'.  '''■-■ 

•  -•:■.'.-*. 

The  following  is  a  reply  to  the  request  made 
by  the  Students  of  the  Montreal  Diocesan 
Theological  College  that  I  should  criticize  Arch- 
deacon Farrar's  interpretation  of  the  texts  quoted 
in  the  Excursus  to  his  book  entitled  "  Eternal 
Hope."  I  pray  that  it  may  be  instrumental  in 
counteracting,  in  some  measure,  the  evil  effects 
of  that  misleading  book,  and  in  establishing, 
strengthening  and  settling  those  who  read  it,  in 
the  conviction,  that  he  who  believeth  not  "  shall 
not  see  life ;  but  the  wrath  of  Grod  abideth  on 
,     him."     r  -  y  -■_  ■   ^   ---.   ,  \-, ;.",;: 

Montreal,  Feb.  27,  1884.  .    » 

■■'  ■4., 








;     G-ENTLEMEN,  ^ 

In  accordance  with  your  request,  I 
proceed  to  state  my  views  on  the  subject  of 
Eternal  Punishment.  " 

You  must  bear  with  me,  however,  if  I  detain 
you  beyond  the  time  of  an  ordinary  lecture  in 
the  consideration  of  this  question.  This  is  a 
subject  of  more  than  ordinary  importance ;  and 
more  than  ordinary  care  and  time  are  required 
to  expose  the  fallacies  by  which  anti-orthodox 
views  are  invariably  supported.  Some  may, 
indeed,  question  its  importance,  but  with  me 
there  is  no  room  for  doubt  on  the  subject ;  for, 
surely,  it  must  be  of  the  very  highest  moment, 
in  relation  to  practice,   to  know  whether  we 

can  remove,  without  injury  to  the  building,  the 
foundation  on  which  the  superstructure  rests.    . 
How  then  shall  this  question  be  determined  ? 
I  propose —  . 

1.  To  point  out  what  the  Church  of  England 
teaches  on  the  subject. 

2.  To  state  the  various  opinions  respecting  it. 

3.  To  explain  the  conditions  of  the  problem. 

4.  To  adduce  evidence  of  the  orthodox  doc- 

5.  To  reply  to  objections.  •    -^ 

6.  To  criticize  Archdeacon  Farrar's  Excursus 
on  "Eternal  Hope." 

I.  What  does  the  Church  of  England  teach? 
Is  there  any  ground  for  the  statement  that  "  by 
no  single  formulary  of  the  Church  of  England 
is  such  a  dogma  required  "  ? 

To  which  we  reply,  that,  in  the  Athanasian 
Creed,  it  is  said  of  the  person  who  does  not 
keep  the  Catholic  faith  whole  and  undefiled, 
"without  doubt  he  shall  perish  everlastingly," 
and,  "they  that  have  done  evil  shall  go  into 
everlasting  fire," — "  which  except  a  man  believes 
faithfully  he  cannot  be  saved." 

In  the  Litany  we  are  taught  to  pray,  saying, 
"  from  thy  wrath  and  from  everlasting  damna- 
tion good  Lord  deliver  us." 

In  the  Catechism  we  are  taught  to  say  "  that 
He  will  keep  us  from  our  ghostly  enemy  and 
from  everlasting  death."  ;  ^' 

In  the  Burial  Service  we  are  taught  to  pray, 
saying,  "  deliver  us  not  into  the  bitter  pains  of 
eternal  death."  , 

•  In  the  Commination  Service  we  read  of  the 
**  dreadful  judgment  hanging  over  our  heads," 
of  the  "  sudden  destruction  "  which  we  shall  not 
escape,  of  "  burning  the  chaff  with  unquencha- 
ble fire,"  of  the  time  "  when  men  shall  call  upon 
the  Lord  and  he  shall  not  hear,"  "  they  shall  seek 
him  early  but  shall  not  find  him,"  of  the  "  outer 
darkness,"  and  of  the  "extreme  malediction 
which  shall  light  upon  them  that  shall  be  set 
on  the  left  hand." 

In  the  Ordering  of  Priests,  allusion  is  made 
to  the  "  horrible  punishment "  which  will  ens:  ^ 
on  neglect  of  official  duties. 

Yet  with  this  evidence  before  him,  and  with 
the  knowledge  that  every  clergyman  must  sub- 
scribe to  the  Prayer  book  before  his  ordination. 
Archdeacon  Farrar  does  not  hesitate  to  say  that 
'*  no  formulary  of  the  Church  of  England  requires 
it."     ' 

True,  it  is  no  longer  included  among  the  more 
formal  articles  of  the  Faith,  but  when  the  forty- 
second  article  on  this  subject  was  omitted,  the 
words  quoted  above  were  deliberately  retained. 
Hence  we  argue  that  the  formal  statement  of  the 
doctrine  was  regarded  as  needless,  and  the  fact  is, 
its  frequent  and  informal  presentation  in  the 
various   offices  "is  a  stronger  proof  that  it   is 


required"  than  if  it  were  presented  in  a  more 
formal  manner.  It  is  evidently  taken  for  grant- 
ed, and  the  reasonable  presumption  is,  that  every 
one  will  receive  it  without  question.        ' 

It  should  be  remembered  also  that  it  is  em- 
bodied everywhere  in  the  Homilies,  and  as  we 
subscribe  the  Homilies  when  we  subscribe  the 
Book  of  Common  Prayer,  it  will  be  difficult  to 
understand  how  any  one  can  honestly  enter  the 
ministry  of  the  Church  of  England,  or  remain  in 
it,  who  does  not  accept  the  doctrine  in  the  plain 
grammatical  sense  of  the  terms  in  which  it  is 
expressed  in  the  Liturgy.  -     ;    - 

II.  I  propose  to  define  the  opinions  on  the 

One  is  TJniversalism  which  teaches  that  all 
men  and  evil  angels  after  enduring  an  indefinite 
but  temporary  punishment  shall  eventually  be 
saved.  /^ 

Another  is  "  Alleviationism  "  which  teaches 
that  the  impenitent  shall  neither  cease  to  be, 
nor  be  saved,  but  shall  become  better  in  charac- 
ter and  consequently  in  condition.  •        ., 

Another  is  that  eternal,  punishment  means 
merely  separation  from  the  eternal,  without 
involving  any  more  positive  penal  infliction. 
Another  is  "  Conditional  Immortality "  which 
teaches  that  Glod  "  only  hath  immortality,"  and 
that  man  was  created  potentially,  but  not  neces- 
sarily, immortal.    The  devil,  a  manslayer  from 

the  beginning,  led  man  into  sin  for  the  express 
purpose  of  destroying  his  immortality,  and 
this  was  actually  effected  by  the  fall;  that 
immortality  is  restored  only  on  condition  of 
faith  in  Christ,  and  that  all  therefore  who 
have  not  this  faith  in  Christ  shall  cease  to 
exist.  ^  _ 

Another  is  Farrarism,  or  Eternal  Hope,  which 
is  so  indefinite  that  it  can  only  be  regarded  as 
the  belief  of  one  who  would  like  to  be  a  Univer- 
salist  if  he  could.  '  ^      - 

Another,  the  Orthodox  Doctrine  which  teaches 
that  the  finally  impenitent  shall  exist  hereafter 
in  a  state  of  greater  or  less  misery,  in  proportion 
to  the  evil  deeds  done  in  the  body  without  Grod 
and  without  hope  and  therefore  for  ever. 

III.  I  proceed  next  to  state  the  conditions  of 
the  problem : — 

1.  We  have  to  deal  with  a  Sovereign  Creator. 
He  doeth  according  to  his  will  both  in  the 
armies  of  Heaven  and  among  the  inhabitants  of 
the  earth.  None  can  question  his  right  to  dic- 
tate the  terms  on  which  he  shall  confer  the  gift 
of  life,  or  grant  its  continuance  for  any  specified 
time.  .  ^     .  \   ■ 

2.  We  have  to  deal  with  an  immutable  Grod. 
"I  am  the  Lord,  I  change  not,"  are  his  own 
sublime  words.  He  may  change  his  mode  of 
procedure  in  any  given  case,  but  in  himself  he 
cannot  change.     Even  in  man  a  change  of  out- 


ward  action  does  not  always  argue  a  change 
of  purpose.  In  Grod  it  never  does.  Otherwise 
he  would  not  be  God. 

3.  We  have  to  deal  with  ^an  immortal  soul. 
The  soul  does  not  need  food  as  the  body  does  to 
repair  the  continued  waste.  Hence  it  is  not  likely 
that  it  is  subject  to  waste  of  any  kind.  The 
soul  is  immaterial  and  indivisible,  and  therefore 
^  it  is  probable  that  it  is  immortal.  It  partakes  of 
the  divine  nature,  and  therefore  it  is  more  than 
probable  that  it  is  immortal ;  and  if  we  regard 
the  subject  from  an  historical  point  of  view,  it 
seems  to  have  been  almost  universally  admitted 
in  all  ages. 

Moreover,  "  if  we  grant  that  the  soul  can  sur- 
vive such  a  shock  as  its  separation  from  the 
body  it  seems  irrational  to  entertain  doubts  as  to 
its  subsequent  continuance.  The  most  skeptical 
philosopher  might  exclaim  :  Only  prove  to  me 
that  the  soul  continues  after  death  and  I  will 
make  no  difficulty  in  granting  to  you  that  it  is 
immortal.  Prove  to  me  that  there  is  a  future  life 
at  all,  and  I  will  grant  to  you  that  it  is  eternal." 

"The  '  Critique  of  Practical  Eeason'  demon- 
strates what  Butler  had  only  recommended  as 
consistent  with  our  previous  knowledge — or  at 
least  not  inconsistent  with  it — viz :  that  there 
is  a  righteous  God ;  that  he  reveals  himself  in 
conscience,  and  that  the  spirit  to  which  he 
reveals  himself  is  immortal." 


4.  "We  have  to  deal  with  an  unchangeable 
Law.  It  is  of  the  nature  of  law  to  be  unchange- 
able. Moreover,  this  law  is  a  transcript  of  the 
Divine  nature.  Any  law  fou  ided  on  temporary- 
relations  may  be  abrogated  when  it  ha3  se:ved 
its  purpose;  but  law  founded  on  the  eternal 
necessities  of  the  divine  nature  must  be  as; 
etefnal  and  unchangeable  as  <xod  himself. 

5.  We  have  to  deal  with  man  in  his  covenant 
relationship  to  the  law.  Man  was  placed  at  his 
creation  under  the  first  covenant  of  works, 
G-en.  ii.  16,  1*7,  in  relation  to  which  another 
covenant  is  spoken  of,  viz :  the  new  covenant, 
Heb.  xii.  24.  The  first  covenant  was  made  with 
Adam,  in  a  federal  capacity,  as  the  representative 
of  our  race,  who,  on  this  account,  is  called  the 
"  First  Adam."  I  Cor.  xv.  45.  He  entered  into  it 
willingly,  and  with  a  full  sense  of  the  righteous- 
ness of  the  arrangement.  This  appears  as  well 
from  the  title,  covenant,  which  implies  an  agree- 
ment between  the  parties,  as  also  from  the  two- 
fold consideration  that  we  cannot  think  of  Adam 
while  perfect  as  objecting  to  the  will  of  his 
Maker,  and  that  after  his  fall  he  made  no  reflec- 
tion on  the  injustice  of  the  arrangement.  In  the 
person  of  Adam  each  one  of  us  broke  this  original 
covenant,  and  became  liable  in  cons^  quence  to 
all  the  penalties  which  were  visited  on  him, 
viz.,  alienation  from  Grod — depravation  of  nature 
— forfeiture  of  the  Spirit — and  all  else  that  is 

12  ^ 

involved  in  the  comprehensive  sentence,  "Thou 
shalt  surely  die."  The  demonstrative  evidence 
of  this  is  the  universality  of  death  in  its  physi- 
cal aspect.  "  In  Adam  all  die."  I  Cor.  xv.  22 ; 
yea,  even  those  "who  have  not  sinned  after 
the  similitude  of  Adam's  transgression."  Rom. 
V.  14.  The  death  of  infants  is  inexplicable  on 
any  other  supposition.  The  first  covenant  there- 
fore is  still  in  force  in  reference  to  all,  -8j^  it  is 
written,  "  Tliis  do  and  thou  shalt  live^  Luke  x.  28. 

By  its  terms  the  rewards  of  eternal  life  and 
happiness  are  still  conditioned  upon  the  presen- 
tation of  unblemished  obedience  to  all  the 
precepts  of  the  divine  law.  And  in  case  of  dis- 
obedience, not  only  is  the  same  demand  for 
unblemished  obedience  continued,  but  in  addi- 
tion, the  threatened  penalty  (Gren.  iii.  17,  19,)  is 
incurred  and  must  be  endured,  until  the  required 
condition  l)e  fulfilled,  ^.  e.,  so  far  as  man  himself 
is  concerned,  for  ever.  For,  as  before  transgres- 
sion, the  continuance  of  life  depended  on  the 
continuance  of  perfect  obedience  ;  so  after  trans- 
gression the  restoration  of  life  depends  upon  the 
same,  together  with  the  endurance  of  a  satisfac- 
tory death. 

6.  We  have  to  deal  with  a  class  who  are 
devoid  of  merit.  Merit  is  the  technical  term  for 
perfect  unbroken  obedience ;  and  where  merit  is 
wanting  two  things  are  needful  in  order  to  make 
full  amendment  for  it ;  first,  death  by  the  shed- 


ding  of  blood,  to  take  away  the  guilt  of  disobe- 
dience ;  and  second,  the  performL.nce  of  the 
obedien^^e  as  originally  required.  The  removal  of 
the  guilt  would  not  be  sufficient  to  atone  for  the 
sin.  The  supply  of  actual  obedience  in  place  of 
demerit  is,  if  possible,  even  more  necessary,  before 
the  demands  of  the  law  can  be  satisfied.  For, 
let  a  given  right  line  represent  the  obedience 

thus ,  a  sin  may  be  represented  by  a  break 

in  the  line,  thus ;  But  is  it  not  evi- 
dent, that  in  order  to  mend  the  break  it  is  not 
enough  simply  to  suffer  for  the  act  of  breaking  ? 
The  line  itself  must  be  made  perfect,  otherwise 
the  task  is  not  complete.  But  in  the  case  of 
those  who  have  broken  the  line  of  obedience 
once,  it  is  impossible  to  do  this.  They  cannot 
retrace  the  past  and  present  a  perfect  obedience 
for  an  imperfect ;  consequently,  their  condemna- 
tion must  last  as  long  as  this  inability  lasts — 
and  is  not  that  forever  ?  Can  sinners  ever  hope 
to  overcome  an  obstacle  like  this  ?  If  so,  I  know 
not  how  it  can  be  done.  A  failure  to  observe  this 
is  one  main  cause  of  the  prevalent  indisposition 
to  receive  the  orthodox  doctrine.  In  fact,  the 
non-recognition  of  man's  legal  relations  in  his 
natural  state,  as  set  forth  in  the  epistle  to  the 
Eomans,  is  the  root  of  much  of  the  religious  error 
of  the  present  day. 

t.  "We  have  to  deal  with  those  who  are  de- 
rpived  of  the  Spirit.    This  is  involved  in  the 

,    'T' 


representation  given  in  Scripture  of  our  natural 
fitate,  that  we  are  "dead."  For  as  death  physical 
means  the  separation  of  the  soul  from  the  body, 
so  spiritual  death  means  the  separation  of  the 
soul  from  Grod.  We  are  not  by  nature  intellec- 
tually or  morally  dead,  but  we  are  by  nature 
jspirituajly  dead.  As  born  into  the  world  we 
have  no  spiritual  faculty,  and  are  therefore 
unable  to  discern  the  things  of  the  Spirit  (I  Cor. 
ii.  14,)  any  more  than  one  can  see  who  is  born 
without  the  faculty  needful  for  that  purpose. 
This  separation  of  the  soul  from  G-od  took  place 
when  Adam  sinned,  and  in  fulfilment  of  the 
judicial  sentence :  "  Thou  shalt  surely  die."  In 
other  words,  the  Spirit  was  judicially  with- 
drawn, as  the  penal  consequence  of  Adam's  sin, 
and  we  are  inheritors  of  his  inability  in  this 
respect.  :    ■        / 

8.  "We  have  to  deal  with  a  helpless  race.  (1) 
Naturally  helpless,  on  account  of  the  withdrawal 
of  the  Spirit,  involving  as  a  necessary  conse- 
quence spiritual  death,  and  (2.)  For  the  same 
reason  eternally  helpless ;  (unless,  indeed,  the 
Holy  Spirit  can  be  restored,)  for,  not  only  has  the 
spirit  been  withdrawn,  but  we  are  unable  to 
retrace  our  steps  and  substitute  merit  for  demerit 
— obedience  for  sin.  _^- 

9.  We  have  to  deal  with  a  Spirit  who  cannot 
operate  except  in  conjunction  with  the  Saviour. 
One  person  of  the  sacred  Trinity  cannot  act  inde- 


pendently  of  the  other  two.  The  grieved  Spirit 
cannot  return  unless  the  terms  of  the  original 
covenant  are  fulfilled.  Consequently  the  work 
of  the  spirit  is  inseparably  connected  with  the 
work  of  Christ.  If  ever,  therefore,  the  mediatorial 
work  of  the  Saviour  shall  cease,  the  work  of 
the  Spirit  also  must  cease,  and  man  must  be  left 
in  his  natural  helplessness  to  fulfil  the  terms  of 
the  covenant  in  his  own  strength. 

10.  "We  enjoy  the  presence  of  the  Spirit  now  for 
a  time,  because  Christ  has  fulfilled  the  covenant 
for  us,  and  we  are  therefore  undergoing  now  for 
a  time  a  second  probation.  The  first  was  passed 
representatively  in  Adam.  The  second  is  passed 
personally  during  our  present  life  time.  Tested 
at  first  to  see  whether  he  would  fall,  man  is  now 
tested  a  second  time,  to  ascertain  whether  he  will 
rise  again  and  re-occupy  the  position  which  in 
Adam  he  lost.  Being  involved  in  eternal  con- 
demnation by  the  fault  of  another,  he  has  now 
the  opportunity  of  being  "  drawn  out,"  but  if  he 
refuses  the  intervention  of  that  Providence  which 
would  make  him  an  adopted  son  andjheir  of  the 
kingdom,  he  has  nothing  to  look  for  but  a  cer- 
tain fiery  indignation  which  shall  devour  the 

11.  There  is,  however,  a  limit  to  the  mediatorial 
reign  of  Christ,  and  therefore  a  limit  to  the  gra- 
gious  operations  of  the  Divine  Spirit.  On  this 
point  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  have  given 



many  indirect  intimations^  and  the  New  many 
clear  and  infallible  proofs.  The  wise  man  said 
"He  that  being  often  reproved  hardeneth  his 
heart  shall  suddenly  be  destroyed,  and  that  with- 
out remedy.  Prov.  xxix,  1.  It  is  written:  "Then 
shall  they  call  upon  me,  but  I  will  not  answer ; 
they  shall  seek  me  early,  but  they  shall  not  find 
me."  And  we  are  all  familiar  with  the  words : 
"  The  harvest  is  past,  the  summer  is  ended,  and 
we  are  not  saved."  , 

More  clearly  still,  in  the  New  Testament 
we  read  of  the  dresser  of  the  vineyard  using 
these  significant  words :  '"  After  that  thou  shalt 
cut  it  down."  We  find  the  Lord  Jesus  described 
4is  the  "last  Adam,"  and  the  present  dispensa- 
tion spoken  of  an  the  "last  time." — Nay  more,  to 
remove  all  room  for  doubt,  it  is  expressly  stated, 
2  Cor.  XV.  24 :  "  Then  cometh  the  end,  when  he 
shall  have  delivered  up  the  kingdom  to  the 
Father,  when  he  shall  have  put  down  all  rule  and 
all  authority  and  power  ";  and  "  There  remain- 
ethno  more  sacrifice  for  sin."  The  Spirit  which 
was  purchased  by  the  sacrifice  of  the  Saviour 
shall  be  finally  withdrawn.  The  restraints  now 
imposed  upon  the  propensities  of  the  wicked 
shall  be  entirely  and  forever  taken  away,  and  as 
a  natural  consequence  the  last  state  of  these  men 
shall  be  worse  than  the  first.  Unimpeded  then 
by  any  supernatural  check  they  will  decline  from 
one  degree  of  moral  turpitude  to  another,  as 


inevitably  as  a  stone  held  for  a  time  at  the  top 
of  en  inclined  plane,  must  roll  downwards,  when 
that  whicli  held  it  is  removed,  and  not  cease  till 
it  reaches  the  spot  where,  in  accordance  with  the 
unalterable  laws  of  the  universe,  it  must  remain 
until  it  shall  either  ascend  of  itself  or  be  taken 
up  by  sonie  superior  power.      , 

Hence  it  follows  that  reconciliation  with  God 
can  only  be  effected  while  the  reign  of  the 
Saviour  lasts.  It  will  be  too  late  to  look  for  it 
after  the  "  door  is  shut." — ^Matt.  xxv.  10.  It  can- 
not take  place  after  the  Son  shall  have  "  delivered 
uj)  the  kingdom."  Nor  after  death  and  hell  shall 
be  "  cast  into  the  lake  of  fire."      »  - 

12.  We  have  to  deal  with  those  who  will  be 
continually  sinning;  Many  seem  to  think  that 
when  the  Hubicon  ol  death  is  passed,  the  fountain 
of  sin  will  be  dried  up,  and  the  punishment  to 
be  endured  will  have  reference  only  to  the  sins 
of  this  life,  but  a  little  reflection  will  show  how 
erroneous  this  opinion  is  :  "A  corrupt  tree  can- 
not bring  forth  good  fruit,"  and  though  it  be 
true  that  for  the  demerit  of  evil  deeds  committed 
here — nay  more,  of  a  single  evil  deed,  an  eternity 
of  punishment  is  no  more  than  the  due  reward 
according  to  the  terms  of  the  covenant.  Yet  it 
is  no  less  true,  that  the  punishment  to  be  awarded 
hereafter  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  referring  exclu- 
sively to  the  sins  committed  here.  It  refers 
eqtkally  to  sins  committed  in  that  future  state. 


Each  successive  sin  has  its  own  weight  of  penalty- 
attached,  and  it  needs  no  great  ability  to  under- 
stand that  endless  sin  demands  an  endless 
punishment.  ^.         ^  • 

13.  Another  element  should  not  be  forgotten — 
Will  the  lost  even  desire  to  be  reconciled 
unto  God  ?  How  could  they  when  they 
entertain  an  undying  hatred  to  God  and  every- 
thing good  ?  Not  only  will  they  not  wish 
for  such  an  inestimable  blessing,  but  they  will 
probably  wish  that  they  may  not  be  reconciled. 
They  may  undoubtedly  seek  relief,  for  they  will  - 
be  "tormented  in  this  flame,"  but  they  will 
not  seek  it  in  the  company  of  the  holy,  just  and 
good.  They  may  wish  to  have  the  "  tongue 
cooled,"  but  not  that  they  may  chant  the  praises 
of  the  Lord.  Their  only  desire  will  be  that  they 
may  be  permitted  to  return  to  the  earth  from 
whence  they  came.  If  the  permission  were 
granted  it  is  presumed  that  they  would  remain 
unchanged  and  pursue  again  the  indulgence  of 
those  sins  which  brought  them  to  the  place  of 
torment,  and  separated  between  themselves  and 
their  God. 

14.  It  is  scarcely  needful  to  add  that  there  will 
be  only  the  two  states  after  the  judgment.  There 
is  no  intermediate  condition  between  that  of 
those  who  endure  the  wrath  to  come,  and  that  of 
those  who  enter  into  the  joy  of  the  Lord.  Then 
as  now,  if  the  word  of  God  be  true,  whosoever 

.  «•". 


shall  not  be  with  Christ  shall  be  against  him, 
and  it  will  need  then  more  than  the  power  of 
divine  Omnipotence  to  change  the  enmity  of  the 
hard  and  stony  heart  into  the  friendship  and  love 
of  one  that  is  filled  with  the  influences  of  the 
Spirit  of  God.  '  ;     -  r 

Such  are  the  conditions  of  the  problem  before 
us,  and  when  we  review  them,  we  conclude  that 
if  the  Grod  of  the  universe  be  unchangeable ;  if 
his  covenant  of  works  be  still  in  force ;  if  the 
mediatorial  reign  of  Christ  be  limited  in  dura- 
tion, and  the  work  of  the  Spirit  inseparably 
connected  with  it ;  if  man  be  left  to  himself  to 
satisfy  the  demands  of  the  violated  law  and  to 
stand  perfect  and  complete  before  a  holy  God — 
it  cannot  be  done.  It  is  impossible  for  a  man  to 
renew  his  life  from  the  beginning  and  fill  up 
the  deficiencies  of  the  past,  and  present  a  right- 
eousness which  will  stand  the  searching  scrutiny 
of  him  "  who  keepeth  mercy  for  thousands  "  but 
will  by  no  means  "clear  the  guilty." 

IV.  I  proceed  now  to  the  proofs  of  the  orthodox 
doctrine  from  Reason  and  Scripture  : 

In  the  first  place  then,  Reason  suggests  that 
the  same  causes  which  operate  to  make  the 
punishment  of  sin  inevitable  here,  may  operate 
in  the  same  way  throughout  Eternity.  Unless 
there  be  some  positive  reason  for  anticipating  of 
a  change  in  the  laws  which  regulate  human 
action,  the  presumption  unquestionably  is  that 

'..■■■.  ■v--i  =.»:., 


in  respect  of  sin,  all  things  will  continue  as 
they  have  done  since  the  day  in  which  Adam 
by  transgression  fell.  Some  think  that  a  change 
will  be  introduced  in  the  way  of  annihil- 
ation, and  that  after  a  temporary  punishment  all 
sinners  shall  cease  to  exist.  But  the  moral  diffi- 
culties of  the  temporary  punishment  of  the 
wicked  hereafter  are  much  greater  than  those 
connected  with  their  eternal  punishment.  *'  It 
would  seem  like  vindictiveness  if  God  were  to 
raise  men  from  the  dead  in  order  that,  having 
tormented  them  for  a  number  of  years,  he  might 
consign  them  to  annihilation.  If  annihilation 
be  no  part  of  G-od's  scheme  we  can  understand 
that  a  soul,  as  long  as  it  exists,  must  bear  the  lot 
in  which  it  has  involved  itself.  But  if  it  be  G-od's 
intention  to  annihilate  any,  pity  would  suggest 
that  he  should  do  so  without  inflicting  prelimin- 
ary torment  .  .  It  is  more  difficult  to  imagine 
purposes  served  by  the  temporary  sufferings  of 
the  wicked  after  this  life  than  by  their  eternal 
punishment.  Sufferings  not  supposed  to  end  in 
reformation,  must  be  inflicted  for  the  benefit,  not 
of  the  offender  himself,  but  of  others.  Now  we 
can  understand  that  the  perpetual  exhibition  in 
the  case  of  a  few  (as  compared  with  the  whole 
universe)  of  the  terrible  consequences  of  sin 
may  be  the  means  for  maintaining  in  the  many 
a  wholesome  horror  of  sin.  It  may  be  questioned 
whether    any   transient   exercise    of  judgment 


would  suffice  to  produce  an  impression  certain 
to  endure  throughout  eternity.  But  if  tempor- 
rary  punishments  will  suffice,  we  can  form  no 
conjecture  as  to  the  length  of  time  necessary 
for  their  continuance.  No  one  can  assert  that 
he  has  ascertained  that  this  life  is  too  short 
for  the  display  of  Grod's  hatred  of  sin,  or  that 
he  can  discern  a  necesssity  for  prolonging  the 
misery  which  vice  entails  in  this  life  for  a  fur- 
ther period,  which,  however  long,  will  still  be 
but  a  moment  in  comparison  of  eternity." 

In  short,  then,  the  supposition  of  temporary 
sufferings  of  the  wicked  to  be  succeeded  by  their 
annihilation,  appears  to  be  quite  destitute  of  evi- 
dence, while  it  does  not  remove  a  single  difficulty 
which  attends  the  doctrine  of  eternal  punish- 
ment." This  was  observed  long  since  by  Cicero, 
who  "  casts  great  ridicule  on  this  hypothesis  as 
entertained  by  certain  stoic  philosophers.  He 
urges  that  they  grant  all  that  is  difficult,  and 
raise  doubts  where  there  seems  no  room  for 
doubt."    Tusc.  Quest.  I.  32. 

We  see  therefore  no  prospect  of  change  in  the 
future  ;  on  the  contrary,  there  seems  to  be  abun- 
dant evidence  to  show  that  the  same  causes  not 
only  may,  but  must  operate  throughout  the 
countless  ages  of  eternity. 

1.  The  necessities  of  the  divine  nature  demand 
it.  G-od's  infinite  truth  demands  it.  "  Hath  he 
said,  and  shall  he  not  do  it?  Hath  he  spoken, 
and  shall  he  not  bring  it  to  pass  ?" 

~  -  .  _  22 

His  iufinite  holiness  demands  it.  To  pardon 
sin  without  sufficient  satisfaction  would  be  to 
encourage  sin.  It  would  be  to  offer  a  premium 
upon  its  commission,  and  this  is  scarcely  possible 
for  him  who  is  "of  purer  eyes  than  to  behold 
iniquity,"  and  "  chargeth  even  his  angels  with 

His  infinite  justice  also  demands  it.  The 
stream  of  punishment  must  flow  as  long  as 
flows  the  stream  of  sin ;  continued  punishment 
is  but  the  requitalof  desert  to  those  who  con- 
tinue in  sin.  The  reward  of  demerit  is  as  much 
required  in  the  case  of  the  sinner  as  the  reward 
of  merit  in  the  case  of  the  righteous.  Justice 
demands  that  the  punishment  in  the  one  case 
shall  be  as  lasting  as  the  rewards  in  the  other, 
and  if  that  be  as  long  as .  their  unrighteousness 
lasts,  it  is  more  than  probable  that  it  will  be 
for  ever. 

There  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  they  will  ever 
become  better,  but  on  the  contrary,  worse.  Carry- 
ing with  them  the  characters  moulded  by  their 
conduct  in  this  life,  they  will  move  on  in  the 
same  direction  in  which  they  have  been  walking 
here,  and  will  become  so  fixed  in  their  habits 
that  it  will  be  impossible  to  change  them.  This 
would  be  the  natural  result,  even  if  they  were 
in  the  company  of  the  holy  and  the  good ;  but  if 
not,  how  can  we  expect  them  to  improve.  Is  it 
at  all  probable  that  moral  progress  can  be  made 

in  company  with  the  devil  and  his  angels,  where 
there  is  no  counteracting  influence  for  good ,  no 
example  to  follow,  no  voice  to  warn,  no  power 
to  act  ? 

2.  The  terms  of  the  covenant  demand  it.  In 
order  to  see  this  clearly,  it  is  needful  to  remem- 
ber what  has  been  said  about  the  demerit  and 
the  guilt  of  sin.  It  is  the  demerit  of  sin  and  not 
its  guilt  which  causes  the  eternity  of  future 
punishment.  While,  therefore,  the  demerit  of  sin 
remains,  the  punishment  cannot  but  remain  also. 
But  the  demerit  must  remain  forever  where  once 
it  exists — for  man  can  neither  blot  out  the  past 
nor  fill  up  his  demerits  in  the  future.  He  can- 
not mend  the  breach  in  the  line  of  his  past  dis- 
obedience and  come  to  the  Lord,  and  say :  My 
obedience  is  perfect — as  thoroughly  so  as  if  I  had 
never  sinned.  Till  this  is  done  the  case  is  hope- 
less. The  broken  covenant  will  call  for  its  ful- 
filment ;  and  it  is  evident  from  the  nature  of  the 
case  that  it  must  call  in  vain. 

3.  The  interests  of  Grod's  moral  government 
demand  it.  The  law  which  is  "  holy,  just  and 
good,"  must  be  maintained.  To  relax  it  would 
be  to  render  the  divine  government  unworthy  of 
respect  throughout  the  moral  universe.  It  would 
be  to  offer  the  gift  of  life  on  lower  terms  than  it 
was  offered  originally  to  Adam  in  his  state  of 
innocence,  or  to  angels  and  archangels  before 
him.    It  would  be  to  manifest  a  culpable  weak- 


ness  such  as  we  attribute  only  to  fallible  man, 
and  to  declare  that  the  endurance  of  a  partial 
penalty  will  suffice,  not  only  to  free  from  condem- 
nation, but  also  to  entitle  to  the  reward  of  right- 

4.  The  free  agency  of  man  demands  it.  It  is 
well  worthy  of  consideration  whether  the  Uni- 
versalist  theory  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  truth 
of  the  free  ag'ency  of  man.  "  Is  it  not  a  condition 
of  the  very  idea  of  probation  that  some  will 
stand,  others  fall ;  and  does  not  the  logical  con- 
clusion from  the  theory  go  to  prove  the  denial 
of  free  will  ?  Is  it  really  compatible  with  the 
true  idea  of  free  will  that  all  should  eventually 
choose  aright  ?" 

5.  The  mission  of  the  Saviour  demands  it.  If 
sinners  be  restored  at  all  hereafter,  it  must  be 
apart  from  the  work  of  Christ  and  the  interven- 
tion of  his  Spirit,  as  already  proved.  But  if  so, 
the  mission  of  the  Saviour,  with  all  its  wondrous 
antecedents  and  accompaniments,  was  really 
needless  for  purposes  of  salvation.  It  was  noth- 
ing more  than  a  mere  sensational  exhibition  of 
extraordinary  moral  virtue.  The  miraculous 
mcarnation  of  the  Son  of  Man,  his  deep  humila- 
tion  and  unparalleled  sufferings  are  thus  re- 
duced to  the  level  of  a  mere  theatrical  display, 
with  a  view  to  produce  a  moral  effect ;  or,  at  best, 
to  give  men  a  helping  hand  towards  the  attain- 
ment  of  everlasting  salvation ;   a  help  which 

.  ■,       .    V 


might  have  been  dispensed  with,  if  this  theory 
be  true,  and  which  was  wholly  unnecessary  in 
any  absolute  sense,  if  it  so  be  that  we  can  be 
saved  by  temporary  punishment,  or  any  other 
name  under  heaven  but  that  of  Jesus  only. 

In  short,  the  Universalist  theory  seems  to  be 
a  total  abnegation  of  the  G-ospel.  It  is  certainly  so 
with  regard  to  the  finally  impenitent.  Previous 
to  Revelation  it  would  be  more  difficult  to  under- 
stand how  sin  could  be  forgiven  than  how  it 
could  b^  eternally  punished.  But  by  E^velation 
the  mystery  of  forgiveness  is  explained,  while 
the  certainty  of  eternal  punishment  is  confirmed- 
Since,  therefore.  Revelation  gives  no  hope  (as  we 
shall  presently  see)  of  future  restoration  to  the 
lost,  it  seems  impossible  for  those  who  accept 
not  the  oficr  of  forgiveness  now,  to  escape  the 
due,  and  therefore  the  eternal,  reward  of  their 
deeds.- ■■■"'"^  "  "■'■  ■'    "    ■    ■'"•"'  ^^^'^■^■■■• 

6.  On  the  supposition  that  Christ  had  not 
come,  man  must  have  perished  everlastingly^ 
Much  more  will  he  be  punished  "  with  ever- 
lasting destruction  from  the  presence  of  the 
Lord,  and  from  the  glory  of  his  power,"  if  he 
either  neglects  or  rejects  th^^.  great  salvation 
provided  for  him.  Sin  in  the  light  of  the  cross 
becomes  exceeding  sinful.  It  enhances  un- 
utterably the  guilt  of  the  unbeliever.  It  leaves 
him  equally  without  excuse  and  without 



7.  But  we  go  further  and  say,  that  universal 
restoration  is  impossible  even  if  the  Spirit  of  G-od 
could  intervene,  apart  from  the  Saviour's  satisfac- 
tion for  sin  ;  and  simply  because,  as  already 
proved,  personal  satisfaction  in  the  future  can 
never  satisfy  for  personal  sin  in  the  past.  Even 
therefore  on  the  supposition  that  the  impenitent 
could  become  thoroughly  sanctified  in  body,  soul 
and  spirit,  apart  from  Christ,  this  would  not 
suffice  to  fulfil  the  terms  of  the  covenant.  It 
would  not  avail  to  supply  the  perfect  righteous- 
ness. It  would  not  be  enough  in  a  court  of 
justice  to  reverse  the  sentence  of  death.    ;  ; 

8.  And  for  the  same  reason  we  say  that  restora- 
tion is  impossible,  even  if  it  could  be  proved  that 
punish ^nent  is  purgative.  It  is  not  merely  the 
cleansing  of  the  sufferer  from  the  guilt  and  pol- 
lution of  sin,  that  is  required.  The  perfection  of 
obedience  from  the  beginning  must  be  secured.  . 
The  terms  of  the  covenant  as  regards  the  precepts 
of  the  lav7  must  be  kept  inviolate.  But  we  deny 
that  punishment  is  purgative  in  relation  to  the 
impenitent,  whatever  it  may  be  with  reference  to 
others ;  as  chastisement,  it  may  be,  but  not  as 
punishment;  and,  you  are  aware  that  chastise- 
ment relates  only  to  the  good. 

9.  It  is  a  strong  confirmation  of  this  truth  that 
it  is  so  closely  in  accordance  with  the  analogy  of 
nature.  There  is  a  point  in  the  affairs  of  the 
men  of  this  world,  up  to  which  they  may  retrieve 


their  fortunes,  but  beyond  that  point  it  is  im- 
possible. •  ■  V         - 

We  conclude,  therefore,  from  the  foregoing 
considerations  that  the  present  life  is  "  the " 
season  favorable  to  salvation,  and  the  analogy  of 
nature  teaches  us  that  seasons  neglected  can 
never  be  recalled. 

But  what  saith  the  Scripture.  Before  we 
examine  it,  let  me  say  that  there  are  certain  rules 
to  be  observed  in  its  interpretation  which  can- 
not be  overlooked.  Of  these  two  only  need  be 
mentioned  here. 

1.  We  must  interpret  it  so  as  to  make  it  con- 
sistent with  itaelf,  e.  g.,  the  meaning  of  the  word 
"  reconciliation  "  must  be  limited,  as  God  himself 
has  limited  it.  If  he  says  that  reconcialiation  can 
only  be  effec^  ^d  in  one  way,  viz.,  through  Christ ; 
who  are  we  that  we  should  presume  to  say  it  may 
take  place  in  some  other  way,  viz.,  apart  from 

2.  We  must  interpret  it  from  the  position  of 
its  own  writers  and  audiences. 

We  come  then  to  the  consideration  of  Scrip- 
tural testimony.  It  may  be  subdivided- into  the 
following  parts : 

1.  The  testimony  of  the  Old  Testament. 
.'  2.  The  testimony  of  Christ.  . 

3.  The  testimony  of  the  Apostles. 
.   4.  Indirect  testimonies. 

We  find  the  first  testimony  in  Gren.  ii.  Vj, 

* .  i 



where  it  is  written :  "In  the  day  that  thou  eat- 
est  thereof  thou  shalt  surely  die."  This  means 
more  than  physical  death,  for  though  Adam  died 
he  continued  to  live.  It  embraces  a  two-fold 
death,  "  dying,  thou  shalt  die."  It  supports  the 
view  that  the  state  of  future  retribution  is  the 
continuation  and  development  of  the  present.  It 
intimates  that  the  ultimate  death  to  which  refer- 
ence is  here  enigmatically  made,  will  be  unlim- 
ited in  its  duration.  This  is  indicated  negatively 
by  the  absence  of  all  limit  in  the  verse  before  us, 
and  there  is  room  for  the  belief  that  our  first 
parents  thoroughly  understood  the  matter  in  this 
sense.  If  this  be  true,  Adam  sinned  in  full 
view  of  the  nature  of  the  predicted  consequences 
and  so  the  very  first  man  (as  might  naturally 
have  been  supposed)  had  clear  and  sufficient 
information  given  him  respecting  a  doctrine,  of 
which  some  do  not  scruple  to  say  that  there  is 
no  trace  of  it  whatever  in  the  Old  Testament 
Scriptures.  "  '    ■ 

The  next  testimony  is  found  in  G-en.  iii.  15, 
where  it  is  written  "  Thou  (the  serpent)  shalt 
bruise  his  heel."  Here  it  is  clearly  revealed  that 
though  the  promised  Seed  should  bruise  the  ser- 
pent's head,  yet  the  serpent  should  bruise  his 
heel,  in  other  words,  should  succeed  in  inflicting 
a  permanent  injury  upon  that  body  of  which 
the  promised  Seed  was  the  Head.  I  say  perma- 
nent, because,  confessedly,  the  bruising  of  the 

',  ♦ 


Head  is  permanent,  and  the  bruising  in  the  one 
clause  of  the  sentence  must  be  equally  perma- 
nent with  that  in  the  other.  If  so,  we  find  in 
these  words,  a  clear  prediction  of  the  future  and 
permanent  sufferings  of  a  portion  of  that  body 
of  which  the  Saviour  was  the  appointed  repre- 
sentative. They  declare  on  the  very  first  page 
of  human  history,  the  perfect  compatibility  of 
such  suffering  with  the  reality  of  the  Saviour's 
supremacy,  and  the  truth  of  his  conquest  over 
all  his  enemies.  --► 

Some  indeed  say  that  if  any  be  lost,  it 
will  in  so  far  be  an  evidence  that  Satan 
has  triumphed  over  Christ — as  if  the  captives 
behind  the  conqueror,  in  his  triumphal  entry  to 
the  city,  were  not  rather  an  additional  evidence  ■ 

^C  '  of  his  triumph  than   an   evidence   against   it. 

^    ;■  They  say — his  purpose  of  salvation  towards  them 

/  :  is  frustrated — yes,  if  that   purpose  was  that  all 

;  should  be  saved  without  exception,  but  the  very 

•     opposite   seems  to   be   the  case.     He  has  said 

,    plainly  of  some   "They  shall  not  see  life."     He 

said  with  a  significant  emphasis   "  I   say  unto 

you  that  many  shall  seek  to  enter  in  and  shall 

not  be  able"  (Luke  xiii.  24),  and   it  is  written 

(Luke  xix.  27)  :  "  But  those  mine  enemies  which 

would  not  that  I  should  reign  over  them  bring 

!;     hither  and  slay  before  me." 

We   come  next   to  the  types  and  shadows  of 

^     the  Mosaic   economy  and  we  err  greatly,  -    we 

imagine  thatthere  are  no  instructive  intimations 


there.  We  find  e.  g*,  that  there  were  some  sins, 
viz.,  presumptive  sins,  which  were  incapable 
of  expiation,  and  this  is  the  germ  of  the  truth 
that  there  are  some  sins  which  shall  not  be 
forgiven,  either  in  this  world,  or  in  that  which 
is  to  come.  - 

If  we  pass  on  to  the  Psalms  and  Proverbs  we 
find  such  passages  as  these  "  I  shall  be  innocent 
from  the  great  transgression."  (Psl.  xix.  13.) 
"  Salvation  is  far  from  the  wicked."  (Psl.  cxix. 
155.)  "  The  wicked  is  driven  away  in  his  wicked- 
ness, but  the  righteous  hath  hope  in  his  death." 
(Prov.  xiv,  32.) 

The  prophets  also  speak  the  same  language. 
Isaiah  says  (xxxiii.  12)  :  "  The  people  shall  be 
as  the  burnings  of  lime,  as  thorns  cut  up,  shall 
they  be  burned  in  the  fire." — Who  among  us 
shall  dwell  with  the  devouring  fire?  Who 
among  us  shall  dwell  with'everlasting  burnings? 
He  says  again  in  a  passage  which  Archdeacon 
Farrar  evidently  does  not  like,  and  which  is  as 
evidently  referred  to  by  our  Saviour  in  the  New 
Testament.  "  They  shall  go  forth  and  look  upon 
the  carcases  of  the  men  that  have  transgressed 
against  thee :  for  their  worm  shall  not  die, 
neither  shall  their  fire  be  quenched  and  they 
shall  be  an  abhorring  to  all  flesh."  (Is.  Ixvi.  24.) 
See  also  Dan.  xii.  2.  "  Many  of  them  that  sleep 
in  the  dust  of  the  earth  shall  awake,  some  to 
everlasting  life  and  some  to  shame  and  ever- 
lasting contempt." 


These  are  strong  testimonies.  They  speak  of 
death  and  exclusion  from  the  presence  of  the 
Lord.  To  an  unsophisticated  mind  they  convey 
the  idea  of  eternal  duration.  But  this  is  ques- 
tioned, and  we  reply  that  all  the  remaining  scrip- 
tural representations  confirm  this  view.  * 

Take  for  example  the  representations  of  the  Ixyrd 
Jesus  Christ  himself  He  did  not  speak  as  a  Uni- 
versalist  when  he  was  here  upon  earth.  His 
countrymen,  with  the  exception  of  the  Sadducees 
believed  in  the  doctrine  of  eternal  punishment. 
But  on  no  occasion  did  he  correct  them  for 
erroneous  views  on  this  subject.  I  am  aware 
that  Archdeacon  Farrar  has  questioned  the 
truth  of  the  statement,  that  the  Jews  believed  in 
eternal  punishment,  but  there  is  full  and  decisive 
evidence  on  this  point.  The  Chaldee  paraphrast 
interprets  it  to  mean  "the  Gehenna  of  eternal 
fire."     Lightfoot,  vol.  xi.,  p.  107. 

Josephus  gives  the  doctrines  of  both  the  Es- 
senes  and  the  Pharisees  : — "The  Essenes  like 
th^  G-reeks  allot  to  bad  men  a  dark  and  tempes- 
tuous den,  full  of  never  ceasing  punishments  (timo- 
rion  adialeipton).     De  Bello,  Judacio  ii.,  8, 

The  Essenes  say  that  bad  men  are  restrained 
by  the  fear  of  suffering  immortal  punishment 
(athanaton  timorian)  De  B.,  J.,  11,  8. 

The  Pharisees  hold  "  that  souls  are  incorrupt- 
ible, (apthartous)  but  that  the  souls  of  good  men 
are  only  moved   into   other  bodies,  whereas  the 



souls  of  bad  men  are  subject  to  eternal  punish- 
ment (timoria  aidio)      De  B.  J.,  11,  8. 

Again  Aut.  xviii.,  1 — 3.  That  there  is  in  hu- 
man souls  an  immortal  force,  that  to  some  there 
is  assigned  "eternal  imprisonment  (eirgmon 
aidion.  — 

Also  in  his  so-called  book  "  De  Machaboeis  " 
it  is  written  "  The  judgment  shall  assign  thee 
to  an  eternal  fire  (aionio  puri)  and  to  torments 
which  shall  not  leave  thee  for  all  eternity  (eis 
holon  ton  aiona),  and  in  his  discourse  concern- 
ing Hades  he  says  "  allotting  to  the  lovers  of 
wicked  works  eternal  punishment.  To  these 
belong  the  unquenchable  fire,  and  that  without 
end,  and  a  certain  fiery  worm,  never  dying,  and 
not  destroying  the  body."  * 

The  book  of  Judith  also  gives  evidence  of  the 
early  Jewish  opinions  on  the  subject,  xvi.  17, 
"The  Lord  Almighty  will  take  vengeance  on 
them  in  the  day  of  judgment,  and  they  shall 
feel  them  and  weep  forever."  The  question  is  thus 
placed  beyond  dispute,  and  we  learn  from  these 
quotations  the  sense  in  which  our  Lord's  words 
are  to  be  understood  where  he  says  "  Some  shall 
enter  into  life  everlasting  and  others  shall  go 
away  into  everlasting  punishment."  >i 

Consider  also  how  frequently  and  emphati- 
cally he  expressed  himself  on  the  subject. 
He  said  to  Nicodemus  that  he  must  "  be  born 
Again  or  that  he  could  not  enter  the  kingdom." 


He  declared  that  "they  (meaning that  they  only) 
that  hear  shall  live "  ;  that  some  "  shall  come 
forth  to  the  resurrection  of  damnation  "  ;  that 
there  is  both  "a  broad  and  narrow  way,"  and  that 
"  few  there  be  that  find  it  "  ;  that  there  are  some 
who  "  have  never  forgiveness  "and  some  who 
shall  be  "  denied  before  the  angels  of  6-od  ";  that 
there  is  one  who  "  shall  destroy  both  body  and 
soul  in  hell "  and  some  who  shall  "  lose  their  own 
soul "  ;  that  there  are  some  "  who  shall  die  in 
their  sins  "  and  some  who  "  shall  be  thrust  down 
into  hell  "  ;  that  there  are  some  who  shall  be 
commanded  to  "  depart  from  him"  and  some  who 
shall  be  "  miserably  destroyed."  He  said  on  one 
occasion  "  How  can  ye  escape  the  damnation  of 
hell  ?  "  on  another  "  If  a  man  abide  not  in  me 
he  is  cast  forth  as  a  branch  and  is  withered,  and 
men  gather  them  and  cast  them  into  the  fire 
and  they  are  burned." — No  man  ever  yet  saw  a 
withered  branch  restored,  much  less  a  withered 
branch  after  it  was  burned. — He  said  of  Judas 
that  he  was  the  "  son  of  perdition  "  and  that  he 
was  "  lost."  He  said  moreover  to  the  eleven  on 
the  summit  ot  Olivet,  ere  he  ascended  to  the 
Father,  that  it  was  of  the  very  essence  of  the 
Grospel  which  he  commissioned  them  to  preach 
to  teach  this  doctrine  "  Gro  ye  into  all  the  world 
and  preach  the  G-ospel  to  every  creature,  he  that 
believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved  and  he 
that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned." 


Now,  when  we  think  on  these  things  and  re- 
flect that  they  were  spoken  to  a  people  who  be- 
lieved in  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  and  in  the 
eternity  of  penal  sufferings  beyond  the  grave,we 
cannot  but  acknowledge  the  force  of  such  testi- 
mony on  the  orthodox  side.  We  ought  to  con- 
fess that  they  were  calculated  to  confirm  the 
Jews  in  the  popular  belief  that  there  was  no 
escape  from  the  final  condemnation  of  the  pit. 

The  teaching  of  the  apostles  fully  agrees  with 
that  of  their  Divine  Master;  The  great  burden 
of  it  everywhere  is  salvation  for  the  lost.  It 
matters  not  to  what  Epistle  we  turn  we  find  its 
author  speaking  as  if  the  orthodox  doctrine  were 
true.  St.  Paul  says  solemnly  to  the  Gralatians, 
"I  tell  you  that  they  which  do  such  things 
shall  not  inherit  the  Kingdom  of  Grod." 
"  Whatsoever  a  man  soweth  that  shall  he  also 
roap,  he  that  soweth  to  the  flesh  shall  of  the 
flesh  reap  corruption,  but  he  that  soweth  to  the 
spirit  shall  of  the  spirit  reap  life  everlasting." 
Is  it  possible  that  a  stronger  illustration  could 
have  been  used  ?  Is  it  in  the  nature  of  corrup- 
tion to  purge  and  improve  that  which  is  the 
sucject  of  its  power  ?  Or  did  any  one  ever  see 
corruption  restored  ?  • 

We  read  also  of  those  "  who  shall  be  punished 
with  everlasting  destruction  from  the  preseJnce 
of  the  Lord  and  from  the  glory  of  his  power,", 
and  as  if  the  apostle  anticipated  the  objection 


which  so  many  urge  at  the  present  day  he  puts 
this  pertinent  enquiry,  "  Is  God  unrighteous 
who  taketh  vengeance  ?  "  and  says,  "  G-od  forbid, 
for  then  how  shall  God  judge  the  world  ?  "  To 
which  we  may  add  the  testimony  of  the  loving 
John  who  says  that  the  "  Smoke  of  their  tor- 
ment ascendeth  up  forever  and  ever."  (Eev.  xiv. 
11.)  Thus  the  apostolic  testimony  also  endorses 
the  popular  belief.  Couple  it  then  with  that  of 
the  Saviour's  and  with  the  argument  derived 
.  >from  the  legal  and  covenant  necessities  of  the 
case,  and  the  conclusion  seems  to  be  irresistible 
that  the  Scriptures  affirm  the  orthodox  doctrine 
with  a  frequency  and  a  power  which  cannot 
consist  with  restoration  principles  and  is  abso- 
lutely inexplicable,  taken  as  a  whole,  except 
upon  the  basis  of  its  absolute  truth. 

This  will  appear  still  more  strongly  if  you 
turn  to  a  passage  in  the  epistle  of  the  Hebrews 
vi.  4,  where  the  apostle  says  "  It  is  impossible 

.  .  .to  renew  them  again  to  repentance." 
The  force  of  these  words  cannot  be  evaded  by 
any  of  the  ordinary  methods.  They  cannot  be 
explained  away  in  a  figurative  sense.  It  is 
stated  plainly  that  in  the  case  of  some,  recovery 
is  impossible,  observe,  impossible  here^  where  the 
Spirit  is  confessedly  available,  much  more  im- 
possible there,  where  His  gracious  influences  are 
withdrawn.  .     * 

Now,  could  there  be  stronger  language  than 



this?  Surely  we  have  iu  this  passage  what 
Archdeacon  Farrar  says  he  has  been  searching 
in  vain  for,  viz. :  "an  indisputable  voice  of 
Revelation  to  guide  us."  If  this  be  not  one, 
what  more  indisputable  could  be  desired.  This 
is  the  case  of  persons  upon  whom  every  divine 
influence  has  been  exercised,  and  without  effect. 
Can  any  other  influence  be  exerted  which  is 
likely  to  prove  more  effectual  ?  If  the  Almighty 
himself  is  unable  to  persuade  men  to  repent- 
ance, who,  or  what,  can  hope  to  be  more 
successful  ?  The  very  idea  of  such  a  possibility 
is  subversive  of  the  first  principles  of  morality 
and  religion.  It  is  blasphemous  in  the  extreme. 
The  thing  as  Grod  the  Holy  G-host  declares  it  to 
be — is  impossible. 

There  are  besides  many  indirect  testimonies 
which  strongly  corroborate  the  ortliodox  view, 
such  as,  that  some  are  "  without  Grod  "  in  the 
world,  and  "  without  hope  "  (a  flat  contradiction 
to  Eternal  Hope)  ;  that  there  are  some  for  who;raL 
the  atonement  will  not  avail,  and  some  for 
whom  neither  prayers  nor  entreaties  will  be  of 
any  use — that  both  Grod  and  the  righteous 
approve  of  this  retributive  treatment,  and  that 
the  incorrigibly  wicked  continue  to  grow  worse 
and  worse,  together  with  many  others  of  a  similar 
import,  and  when  we  take  these  in  conjunction 
with  those  which  have  gone  before,  and  consider 
their  cumulative  force,  they  constitute  an  argu- 


ment  which  cannot  easily  be  broken.  They  are 
just  the  kind  of  allusion  which  we  might  expect 
to  meet  with,  if  the  orthodox  doctrine  be  true. 
They  are  quite  inexplicable  if  it  be  not  true,  and 
coming  as  they  do  from  so  many  portions  of 
Grod's  Word,  and  uncontradicted  as  they  are  by 
others  of  an  opposite  character,  they  seem  per- 
fectly incompatible  w^it]^  any  other  theory  than 
that  the  doctrine  is  true. 

Y.  I  propose  now  to  reply  to  some  popular 
objections  proceeding  from  the  Univeralists  on 
the  one  hand,  and  Annihilationists  on  the  other. 
It  is  objected  that  the  passages  quoted  do  not 
teach  the  doctrine  in  question.  The  terms  in  the 
original,  it  is  said,  are  capable  of  a  different 
interpretation.  The  G-reek  word  "  Aionios  " 
does  not  always  mean  unending,  "  Krisis  '^  does 
not  always  mean  "  eternal"  judgment.  "  Kolasis" 
means  positively  corrective  punishment. 

To  which  we  reply — It  is  true  that  "  Aionios  " 
is  used  sometimes  of  limited  duration,  but  it  is 
no  less  true  that  it  is  also  used  in  such  a  way  as 
to  preclude  this  idea.  It  is  used  of  the  duration 
of  Grod  the  Father,  Eom.  xvi.  26.  It  is  used  of 
the  glory  of  God  the  Father,  1  Peter  v.  10.  It 
is  used  of  the  life  that  is  in  the  Son,  Eom.  vi. 
23  (see  the  G-reek) ;  1  John  v.  11.  It  is  used  of 
the  glory  that  accompanies  the  salvation  that  is 
in  Christ  Jesus,  2  Cor.  iv.  It.  It  is  used  of  the 
duration  of  the  Eternal  Spirit,  Heb.  ix.  14.    It  is 


used  also  of  the  life  of  the  Blessed,  John  x.  28  ; 
Heb.  V.  9.  The  question,  therefore,  as  to  whether 
it  signifies  a  limited  or  an  unlimited  duration 
when  it  is  applied  to  future  punishment,  must 
be  determined  by  the  general  considerations 
already  adduced,  as  well  as  by  those  which  are 
yet  follow,  and  to  my  mind  there  are  two  whose 
force  cannot  be  evaded,  and  which,  therefore, 
settle  the  question  beyond  all  controversy.  The 
first  is,  that  the  terms  of  the  original  covenant 
of  works  require  it — without  perfect  obedience 
the  sinner  cannot  be  released.  The  second,  that 
the  Jews  must  have  so  understood  the  words  of 
the  Lord  and  His  apostles ;  and  therefore  our 
Lord  and  His  apostles  must  have  intended  them 
to  be  so  understood. 

The  same  observations  apply  to  all  the  terms 
used  by  our  Blessed  Lord  and  His  apostles  with 
reference  to  this  subject.  "  Krisis "  in  like 
manner  is  used  sometimes  to  mean  a  lesser 
judgment,  but  it  does  not  follow  that  it  is,  there- 
fore, always  so  used — e.g.,  in  Matt,  xxiii.  33  or 
Mark  iii.  29.  With  as  much  reason  it  might  be 
said  that  the  word  "  sentence "  used  most 
frequently  in  English  to  signify  words  arranged 
in  a  certain  order,  without  any  reference  what- 
ever to  loss  of  life,  can  never  mean  a  judicial 
sentence  involving  loss  of  physical  life  ;  or, 
that  because  the  English  word  "  hang  "  in  nine 
hundred  and  ninety-nine  cases,  perhaps,  out  of 

every  thousand  of  its  tiso,  implies  the  mere 
harmless  suspension  of  a  coat  or  some  such 
thing,  it  can  therefore  never  mean  to  hang  in  a 
punitive  sense — to  kill  by  suffocation — yet  Arch- 
deacon Farrar  says  that  because  there  are  only 
fifteen  places  out  of  more  than  a  hundred  in 
which  our  translation  has  deviated  from  the 
proper  renderings  of  "judge  "  and  "  condemn" 
into  "  damn  "  and  its  cognates,  this  single  fact 
ought  to  be  decisive  to  every  candid  mind. 
Indeed!  The  mind  unquestionably  may  be 
candid,  but  it  would  be  far  from  logical.  It  is 
Scarcely  logical  to  say  that  because  a  word  is 
used  in  one  hundred  and  eighty-five  cases  in 
a  certain  sense,  it  must,  therefore,  be  so  used 
in  every  case. 

"We  now  come  to  the  word  "  Kolasis  "  (Matt. 
XXV.  46)  of  which  it  is  said  that  it  means  correc- 
tive punishment — chastisement  with  a  view  to 
improvement.  Suppose  it  to  be  so,  for  the  sake 
of  argument.  It  has  been  already  shown  that 
even  if  men  could  be  sanctified  by  means  of 
punishment,  it  would  not  avail  (in  consequence 
of  past  imperfect  obedience)  to  deliver  them 
from  condemnation — it  would  not  entitle  them 
on  the  terms  of  the  covenant,  to  the  reward  of 
eternal  life. 

But  is  it  true  to  say  that  punishment  is  in  its 
nature  corrective  ?  The  answer  is,  yes,  but  not 
in  the   sense    intended    by    the    Universalist. 

'  40 

*' Kolasis  "  in  its  original  signification  refers  to 
the  pruning  of  a  tree  ({castigatio  quce  luxuriantihus 
arboribus  adhibetur,  et  qua  velut  supplicio  eoercerentwr, 
et  reprimuntur),  and  the  question  arises  here 
whether  the  corrective  idea  expressed  by  the 
word  applies  to  the  tree  which  is  pruned,  or  to 
the  branch  which  is  cut  off?  We  say  it  applies 
to  the  tree  which  is  thereby  benefited.  Univer- 
salists  say  it  applies  to  the  branch  which  is 
cut  off. 

It  is  objected  that  "  even  if  the  Bible  does 
teach  the  doctrine,  we  cannot  believe  it.  Such 
teaching  is  overruled  by  other  considerations.'* 
But  we  are  dealing  with  those  who  regard  the 
authority  of  the  Bible  as  supreme.  There  can- 
not, therefore,  be  any  overruling  considerations. 
It  is  objected — e.g.,  that  eternal  punishment 
would  be  unjust — o  finite  sin  cannot  merit  an 
eternal  punishment.  This  objection  is  founded 
on  the  erroneous  suppositions,  first,  that  future 
punisnment  relates  only  to  the  guilt  of  sin, 
omitting  all  considering  of  its  demerit ;  and, 
secondly,  that  it  relates  only  to  the  sins  of  this 
life.  As  regards  the  first  point  it  is  needless  to 
repeat  that  this  would  be  to  grant  the  gift  of 
life  to  sinners  on  lower  terms,  denied  to  others. 
In  other  words,  it  would  be  unjust  not  to  con- 
tinue the  punishment  as  long  as  the  terms  of  the 
covenant  respecting  obedience  are  unfulfilled ; 
and   as  regards   the   second,   we   reply  in  the 



words  of  Leibnitz :  "  No  single  sin  is  in- 
finite, but  if  the  sinner  in  another  state 
continues  to  sin  as  long  as  he  exists  this  will 
give  to  his  sins  the  character  of  infinity."  Let 
no  one  imagine  that  sin  is  limited  to  this  side 
of  the  grave.  It  is  written  "  He  that  is  unjust 
let  him  be  unjust  still ;  and  he  which  is  filthy, 
let  him  be  filthy  still  (Eev.  xxii.  11).  Our  Blessed 
Lord  said  (John  viii.  24)  "  Ye  shall  die  in  your 
sins,"  and  if  the  reading  of  Mark  iii.  29,  now  gene" 
rally  received,  be  adopted.  He  said  also  "  He  that 
blasphemeth  against  the  Holy  Grhost  hath  never 
forgiveness,  but  is  in  danger  of  eternal  sin." 

It  is  objected  further — there  will  be  another 
probation.  We  answer  there  is  no  evidence  of 
any,  and  no  reason  for  it ;  if  there  ought  to  be 
another,  then  there  ought  to  be  another  still, 
and  so  on  ad  inflnitum.  This  theory  seems  to 
ignore  the  fact  that  there  are  some  who  are 
incorrigibly  wicked,  and  to  suppose  that  Grod 
would  consign  them  to  "  the  place  of  torment  " 
before  they  became  incorrigible,  which  is 
certainly  putting  dishonour  upon  God.  But  the 
Scriptures  expressly  declare  there  shall  be  none. 
It  says  that  "  now  "  is  the  day  of  salvation.  It 
assumes  that  our  present  probation  is  adequate, 
and  shall  be  final.  Its  solemn  warnings  and  its 
tender  entreaties  hinge  upon  the  thought  that 
all  hope  of  mercy  for  the  sinner  dies  with  his 
physical  death. 

42         .'      ' 

But  it  is  objected  agaiu — the  law  will  be 
relaxed.  We  answer  it  is  fai  from  probable,  in 
the  light  of  the  life  and  death  of  Christ ;  rather 
than  that  it  should  be  relaxed  in  the  least  degree, 
the  Father  sent  the  Son  to  fulfil  its  utmost 
requirements.  Has  He  then  another  Son  to  send? 
or  will  the  Son  of  Man  consent  to  die  again  for 
the  ungodly  ?  Not  so  long  as  the  words  remain 
that  "  death  hath  no  more  dominion  over  him." 

This  answer  might  suffice,  but  when  it  is  said 
He  relaxed  it  once  by  the  very  admission  of  the 
Saviour  as  our  substitute,  why  then  can  he 
not  do  so  again  ?  It  becomes  needful  to  furnish 
a  more  detailed  reply.  The  objection  betrays  an 
ignorance  on  the  subject  and  a  confusion  of 
thought  which  it  may  be  feared  is  widely 

Our  business  then  will  be  to  show  that  the 
admission  of  a  substitute  was  not  a  relaxation 
of  the  demands  of  the  law,  but  on  the  contrary, 
a  means  of  upholding  its  demands  to  the  letter, 
and  making  it  honourable. 

The  objection  proceeds  on  the  supposition 
that  the  demands  of  justice  for  penal  satisfaction 
are  essentially  personal  and  that,  therefore,  a 
substitute  cannot  be  admitted.  But  it  is  said, 
if  Grod  is  able  to  substitute  one  person  for 
another,  why  can  he  not  dispense  with  punish- 
ment altogether  ? 

The  answer  is, — The  law  is  not  relaxed  in 

-"   '■       '     "        "     '■'  4S  ■  '      ■      '     '^  ^^, 

such  a  case.  Its  righteous  demands  remain  the 
same  whether  they  are  made  upon  the  sinner  in 
person  or  upon  his  accepted  substitute.  There 
is  no  abatement  whatever  in  respect  of  either 
the  precept  or  the  penalty,  consequently,  in  no 
sense  can  the  admission  of  a  substitute  be  con- 
strued into  a  relaxation  of  the  law.  This  is 
evident  if  it  be  admitted,  that  a  legal  one- 
ness is  all  that  is  required  to  satisfy  the 
claims  of  law.  The  substitute  is  in  all  respects 
legally  one  with  the  person  in  whose  place  he 
stands,  and  a  satisfaction  made  by  him  secures 
the  legal  ends  in  view  as  fully  as  if  it  were 
made  by  the  sinner  in  person. 

How  can  this  be  it  is  urged  ?  the  sufferings 
of  the  Saviour  were  not  equivalent  in  duration. 
The  penalty  inflicted  on  the  sinner  is  eternal. 
That  incurred  by  the  Saviour  was  only  tem- 
porary. Notwithstanding  the  satisfaction  made 
•  by  the  sinner  was  equivalent. 

To  prove  this  it  will  be  needful  to  revert 
to  fundamental  principles,  and  call  attention 
once  more  to  the  demands  of  the  covenant  under 
which  the  Saviour  acted.  In  the  case  of  the 
sinner  it  demanded  merit  for  demerit  and  death 
for  guilt.  Merit  alone  would  not  suffice  to 
satisfy  without  death,  nor  would  death  and  the 
removal  of  guilt  by  death  be  sufficient  without 
merit,  but  both  combined  constitute  all  that 
can  be  required  either  of  the  sinner  in  person 


or  an  accepted  substitute.  If,  therefore,  it  were 
possible  in  the  case  of  the  sinner  that  merit 
should  be  presented,  it  would  only  remain  to 
take  away  the  guilt  by  the  act  of  death,  and 
the  sinner  would  be  immediaiely  released.  On 
the  other  hand,  if  the  sinner  presented  the 
death  and  thus  took  away  the  guilt,  it  would 
still  remain  that  he  should  present  the  merit, 
and  it  would  follow  that  he  should  remain 
under  death  till  that  condition  should  be  fulfilled. 
Now  the  Saviour  did  present  the  merit — a  per- 
fect unbroken  obedience — consequently,  it  only 
remained  for  him  to  take  away  the  guilt  by 
death,  He,  therefore,  did  not  become  subject  to 
the  eternal  element  at  all.  He  left  no  duty 
unfulfilled.  But  the  sinner  did  not  present  the 
merit.  He  therefore  suffered  the  death,  and  he 
must  continue  *to  do  so  until  the  merit  be 

Hence  it  appears  that  the  difference  in  the 
duration  between  the  suffering  of  the  Saviour 
and  the  sinner  was  owing  to  the  difference 
between  a  sinless  person  and  a  sinner.  It  arose 
from  the  counterbalancing  difference  in  the 
degree  of  merit.  The  sinner  being  unable  to 
show  merit  remained  subject  to  the  curse  and 
will  remain  so  as  long  as  his  inability  to  produce 
it  lasts.  The  Saviour  on  the  other  hand  possess- 
ing the  merit,  was  under  obligation  to  do  no 
more  than  remove  the  guilt,  which  in  his  case, 


by  reason  of  his  perfect  obedience,  was  the  full 
penalty  required. 

There  is  therefore  no  ground  for  the  asser- 
tion that  the  law  was  relaxed  in  the  Saviour's 
case.  So  far  from  this  being  the  case,  the 
truth  is,  that  the  Saviour's  intervention  was  the 
method  adopted  by  Grod  to  prevent  the  relaxation 
of  the  law  in  effecting  the  restoration  of  the 
sinner.  Under  these  circumstances  we  hold 
that  there  is  not  a  vestige  of  hope  as  regards  any 
future  relaxation.  If  Grod  relaxed  not  the  law 
for  His  Son  neither  will  He  do  it  for  us.  If  He 
spared  not  His  own  Son,  neither  will  He  spare  us. 

Notwithstanding,  many  cling  to  the  idea 
that  some  relaxation  will  be  made — in  particular, 
that  merit  or  a  continuous  obedience  will  not 
be  required — but  where  is  the  evidence  of  this? 
On  the  Lord's-  side  this  would  be  a  departure 
from  the  terms  of  the  covenant  which  •  His 
immutability  forbids,  and  which  would  scarcely 
consist  with  the  declaration  to  the  young  ruler 
—Luke  X.  28,  "  This  do,  and  thou  shalt  live." 
On  the  contrary,  it  will  be  required  for  all  time 
from  us,  as  it  was  required  of  the  Saviour  in 
H  is  fulfilment  of  the  covenant  on  our  behalf. 
It  is  expressly  declared  that  Christ  saves  by  his 
obedience  or  merit  as  well  as  by  His  sufferings. 
"  By  the  righteousness  of  one  the  free  gift  came 
upon  all."  (Eom.  v.  18,)  "  That  righteousness 
might  be  imputed  to  them  also."  (Rom.  iv.  11.) 
"  By  the  obedience  of  one  shall  many  be  made 

-  46  - 

righteous."  (Eom.  v.  19.)  Therefore  to  those 
who  do  not  accept  this  "  gift  of  righteousness  '* 
(Eom.  V.  lY)  it  only  remains  that  they  shall 
work  it  out  for  themselves. 

We  come  now  to  another  objection,  and  a  still 
more  plausible  one — viz.  :  that  God  is  love,  and 
therefore  l^e  cannot  punish  men  for  ever — no 
matter  how  they  have  failed.  But  "  our  Grod  is 
a  consuming  fire,"  and  if  it  be  said  His  infinite 
love  forbids  eternal  punishment,  it  may  be 
said  also  that  His  infinite  fire  necessitates  it. 
If  it  be  a  difficulty  to  conceive  how  he  could 
punish  man  on  account  of  his  love,  it  is  no  less 
a  difficulty  to  conceive  how  he  could  fail  to  do 
so  on  account  of  His  fire. 

Let  us  consider  this  objection  a  little  more 
closely.  It  is  said  "  the  severity  of  the  punish- 
ment is  too  great — it  is  rebuked  by  the  mis- 
givings of  even  human  hearts,  and  shall  mortal 
man  be  more  just  than  G-od,  or  at  any  rate  more 
pitiful  ? — you  condemn,  it  is  said,  your  own 
doctrine  by  your  reluctance  to  receive  it — it 
needs  no  further  condemnation." 

But  we  demur  to  these  conclusions.  We  say, 
in  the  first  place,  that  we  cannot  measure  the 
course  of  divine  action  in  relation  to  sin  by 
a  human  standard.  Even  though  we  might 
judge  aright  for  the  Lord  in  other  matters  not 
relating  to  sin,  yet  it  would  be  extremely  unsafe 
to  say  the  least,  that  as  regards  the  punishment 

of  transgression,  we  should  rely  on  our  power 
to  do  so.  We  should  probably  lay  down  laws 
for  the  love  of  Grod  which  he  could  only  obey 
at  the  expense  of  some  other  attribute.  la  our 
desire  for  tenderness  towards  the  sinner  we 
might  go  so  far  as  to  betray  a  lurking  sympathy 
with  sin,'  or  at  least  an  utter  ignorance  as  to  its 
true  nature  and  proper  deserts. 

I  am  aware  that  when  we  argue  in  this  way 
it  is  described  as  "hard  reasoning."  It  is 
thought  strange  that  we  should  seek  to 
establish  the  infinity  of  Grod's  wrath  rather  than 
the  infinity  of  His  love.  But  this  is  scarcely 
a  true  representation  of  the  facts.  "We  seek 
not  to  establish  one  infinity  rather  than 
another.  We  hold  that  both  must  stand  together 
and  that  no  one  infinity  can  swallow  up  and 
nullifv  another.  If. God's  wrath  be  infinite, 
SO  also  is  His  love,  as  is  undeniably  demonstrated 
in  the  history  of  the  Cross.  If  any  persist  in 
thinking  otherwise — if  they  entertain  the  blas- 
phemous that  Grod  is  unrighteous  who  taketh 
vengeance — we  cannot  meet  the  imputation 
better  than  by  the  repetition  of  the  solemn 
declaration — "  As  I  live,  saith  the  Lord,  I  have 
no  pleasure  n  the  death  of  the  wicked  that  he 
dieth."  Whatever  may  be  our  imperfect,  not  to 
say  impious,  imaginations  on  the  subject,  it  is 
evident  that  the  punishment  of  the  impenitent 
however  protracted  it  may  be,  can  in  nowise 

.     .  48         ,     .     , ^ 

affect  the  justice,  love,  or  mercy  of  Him  whose 
mercy  "  reacheth  unto  the  heavens,"  and  who 
declares  on  oath  that  he  has  no  pleasure  in  it. 

But  the  tree  is  known  by  its  fruits,  it  is  said, 
and  to  what  purpose  is  it  to  say,  that  God  is 
love,  if  his  actions  fail  to  demonstrate  the  fact. 
Oan  he  be  truly  said  to  have  no  pleasure  in  it  if 
he  be  Almighty,  and  yet  permits  the  wicked  to 
perish  everlastingly  ? 

Is  Grod  then  to  be  held  accountable  for  all 
that  He  permits  ?  Is  He  responsible  in  par- 
ticular for  that  which  exists  in  opposition  to 
His  will,  e.g.,  Is  He  chargeable  with  all  the 
accumulated  sorrows  of  this  world  and  the 
countless  ills  to  which  human  flesh  is  un- 
happily heir  ?  He  says  He  does  not  afflict 
willingly  nor  grieve  the  children  of  men  ?  He 
might,  as  King  Almighty,  prevent  it  all  by  the 
simple  utterance  of  a  word,  or  by  the  exercise 
of  his  will ;  but  the  fact  is  he  does  not,  and  if 
the  permission  of  the  one  be  consistent  with 
his  infinite  perfections,  why  might  not  the  other 
also?  Why  should  he  be  expected  to  pursue 
a  course  in  relation  to  future  punishment,  which 
it  is  evident  He  does  not  pursue  with  reference 
to  present  woe  ? 

But  in  addition  to  the  sorrow  and  misery  that 
is  in  the  world  there  is  the  sin  which  is  the  fruit- 
ful source  of  it  all.  Is  Grod  then  to  be  held 
accountable  for  the  sin  as  well  as  the  sorrow  ? 

He  says  he  hates  sir^and  is  "  of  purer  eyes  than  to 
behold  iniquity,"  and  yet  he  suffers  the  sin  and 
exercises  long  forbearance  towards  it !  We  are 
not  called  upon  now  to  explain  this,  we  merely 
refer  to  it  as  an  illustration,  and  say,  that  it  affords 
a  very  practical  illustration  of  the  truth,  that 
God  can  consistently  permit  what  he  does  not 
approve,  and  that  we  cannot  reasonably  affirm, 
that  endless  punishment  is  impossible,  unless  we 
base  our  belief  on  some  better  ground  than  the 
love  of  Grod  on  the  one  hand,  or  his  hatred  of 
sin  on  the  other. 

But  look  at  the  subject  in  another  light.  Study 
it  in  relation  to  the  angels  which  kept  not  their 
first  estate.  So  far  as  we  know  there  is  no  deli" 
verance  for  them.  They  are  described  as  being 
reserved  in  everlasting  chains.  Jude  6,  and  if 
Grod's  love  be  not  incompatible  with  the  endless 
doom  inflicted  upon,  them,  why  should  it  be 
thought  to  be  so,  in  relation  to  the  punishment 
threatened  against  us  ?  Universalists  feel  the 
force  of  this,  and  therefore  they  hold  that 
sooner  or  later  Satan  himself  will  be  associated 
with  men  in  the  salvation  of  the  cross. 

We  cannot  think  so,  first,  because  there  is  not 

the  slightest  evidence  for  it ;  on  the  contrary, 

the  latest  vision  vouchsafed  to  us  of  the  State  of 

the  Evil  one,  represents  him  as  further  removed 

than  ever,  from  the  happiness  of  the  Blessed.   It 

reveals  him  to  us  as  receiving  at  length  the  ful- 



ness  of  his  righteous  reward-*-as  being  cast  into 
the  fire  prepared  for  him,  and  tormented  therein 
day  and  night  foi  ever  ? 

But  this  is  not  all — it  is  impossible  that  angels 
could  participate  in  the  salvation  of  the  cross  of 
Christ.  The  Scriptures  teach  us  that  a  Mediator 
must  possess  the  same  nature  with  those  for 
whom  he  mediates.  But  Christ  took  not  on  him 
the  nature  of  angels.  He  took  on  him  the  seed 
of  Abraham,  for  "  in  all  things  it  behoved  Him 
to  be  made  like  unto  his  brethren."  In  accord- 
ance with  this  principle,  angels  are  excluded. 
The  benefits  of  the  Saviour's  satisfaction  are 
limited  to  the  nature  which  he  assumed,  and  as 
a  necessary  consequence  any  other  sinful  nature 
not  so  assumed  by  a  Redeemer,  must  remain  for 
ever  without  redemption. 

Nor  is  this  all.  We  can  even  see  positive 
reason  why  infinite  love  should  dictate  the  end- 
less retribution  of  the  impenitent  and  the  vile. 
The  love  of  God  has  exerted  its  utmost  efforts  for 
their  restoration  from  evil,  and  without  avail. 
It  has  uttered  its  voice  in  the  streets  and  said, 
"  How  long,  ye  simple  ones,  will  ye  love  sim- 
plicity, and  the  scorners  delight  in  scorning, 
and  fools  hate  knowledge.  Turn  you  at  my 
reproof,  behold,  I  will  pour  out  my  Spirit  upon 
you,  I  will  make  known  my  words  unto  you  " — 
but  all  to  no  purpose.  It  has  therefore  resigned 
the  task  as  hopeless,  and  turning,  away  from  the 

*'  .■'  ',r,.  iv.  ■,     /.  •;: 


guilty  to  the  good,  Infinite  love  itself  says  that  . 
henceforth  all  its  regards  must  be  directed  to 
them.  It  must  watch  exclusively  after  their 
peace  and  purity,  their  happiness  and  safety,  and 
to  this  end  it  is  needful  that  the  wicked  shall  be 
excluded.  The  unholy  and  unclean  must  abide 
in  a  place  by  themselves,  rather  I  should  say, 
they  must  share  the  place  prepared  for  the  devil 
and  his  angels. 

Another  objection  is,  that  universal  redemp- 
tion implies  univeral  salvation.  But  this  is  a 
fallacy.  It  supposes  that  redemption  is  a 
synonym  for  salvation,  which  is  not  the  case. 
The  saved  are  all  redeemed  ;  i)ut  the  redeemed 
are  not  all  saved.  Redemption  is  salvation 
provided ;  salvation  is  redemption  accepted. 

It  may  be  urged  fiirther  that  the  argument 
proves  too  much — all  admit  that  men  undergo 
some  penalties  for  sin.  If,  therefore,  it  is  unjust 
that  those  who  have  been  redeemed  by  Christ, 
as  all  have  been,  should  suffer  an  endless  punish- 
ment for  sin,  it  is  manifestly  unjust  that  they 
should  suffer  at  all.  It  is  not  possible  that  G-od 
should  adopt  for  a  moment,  a  principle  of  action 
which  he  could  not  righteously  maintain  for 

It   is   objected   by  Annihilationists  that  the 
terms  "  death  "  and  "  destruction  "  mean  anni- 
hilation e.g.^  Matt.  X.  28,  where  it  is  written,  - 
*'  Fear  him  which  is  able  to  destroy  both  soul 

■■■■".     6%  ■■    .  , 

and  body  in  hell."  It  is  said  the  meaning  is,  to 
annihilate  both  soul  and  body  in  hell.  But  this  ^ 
is  not  the  case.  The  terms  as  used  in  Scripture 
imply  continued  existence.  They  are  often  used  "^ 
in  appeal  to  man's  fear  of  suffering — "Destroy 
this  temple  and  in  three  days  I  will  raise  it  up," 
yet,  though  destroyed,  that  temple  was  not 
annihilated.  "  In  the  day  that  thou  eatest  thou 
shall  surely^die,"  yet  Adam  lived  in  death.  "  The 
world  that  then  was,  perished,"  (2  Pet.  iii.  6), 
yet  we  are  living  on  it  to  the  present  hour.  And 
we  read  in  Rev.  ii.  11  that  he  that  overcometh 
shall  not  be  hurt  of  the  second  death.  Hurt  or 
injury  would  not  be  possible  on  the  supposition 
of  annihilation,  the  word  "  hurt "  (adikein)  means 
to  inflict  something  that  is  felt,  e.g.,  Luke  x.  19, 
"  I  will  give  you  power  ...  so  that  nothing 
shall  by  any  means  hurt  you."  From  these 
instances  we  see  how  groundless  is  the  theory. 
Many  other  proofs  might  be  adduced,  but  let 
these  suffice. 

VI.  I  now  proceed  to  criticize  Archdeacon 
Farrar's  exegetical  notes. 

Mark  iii.  29,  it  is  written  :  "He  that  shall 
blaspheme  against  the  Holy  Grhost  hath  never 
forgiveness,  but  is  in  danger  of  eternal  damna- 
tion." The  Archdeacon  accepts  the  rendering 
"  eternal  sin,"  but  he  cannot  by  this  means 
weaken  the  testimony.  Eternal  sin  involves 
Eternal  punishment.   The  meaning  is,  "  He  hath 

not  forgiveness  during  the  age,  i.e.,  the  age 
allotted  for  forgiveness  viz.,  the  present  age  (the 
article  is  emphatic),  but  is  in  danger  of  eternal 
sin  (without  the  article.) 

The  excursus  deals  next  with  the  terms  aion  and 
aionios  (see  page  3Y).  But  in  connection  with  them 
the  Archdeacon  notices  St.  Augustine's  argument, 
viz.,  that  etern  a  punishment  must  be  endless, 
because  eternal  life  is  endless,  the  same  G-reek 
term  aionios  being  applied  to  both — Mat.  xxv., 
49,  and  says,  "  this  is  no  argument  at  all  (mark 
the  reason),  because  those  who  press  it  refuse  to 
apply  it  analogously  to  such  texts  as  :  "  As  in 
Adam  all  die,  even  so  in  Christ  shall  all  be 
made  alive."  I,  however,  am  not  among  the 
number.  There  is  no  difficulty  with  me  '  in 
applying  it  to  this  text  in  the  fullest  and  most 
unrestricted  sense.  The  universality  is  com- 
plete in  both  cases.  The  passage  refers  to  the 
general  Resurrection,  not  to  Eestoration. 

The  Archdeacon  adds,  "  our  sure  and  certain 
hope  of  everlasting  happiness  rests  on  no  such 
miserable  foundation  as  the  disputed  meaning 
of  a  G-reek  adjective."  This  is  true  of  everlasting 
happiness  and  no  less  true  of  everlasting  punish- 
ment, but  I  should  hesitate  to  apply  the  terms 
*' miserable  foundation"  to  any  word  used  by 
God  the  Holy  Ghost. 

On  the  word  "  kolasis"  (see  page  39).  The  Arch- 
deacon next  says,  "Unless  my  whole  nature  were 

utterly  changed,  I  can  imagine  no  immortality 
which  would  not  be  abhorrent  to  me,  if  it  were 
accompanied  with  the  knowledge,  that  millions 
and  millions  of  poor  suffering  wretches,  some  of 
whom  on  earth  I  had  known  and  loved,  were 
writhing  in  agony  without  end  and  without 
hope."  To  which  we  reply,  after  premising 
that  the  writhing  in  agony  need  not  be  under- 
stood in  a  material  sense,  this  argues  a  very 
wide  divergence  between  Grod's  thoughts  and 
yours  on  the  subject.  But  even  if  such  diver- 
gence of  view  as  to  the  deserts  of  incorrigible 
sinners,  be  compatible  with  vital  faith  in  G-od 
through  Christ,  as  I  believe  it  is,  it  cannot  be 
denied  that  it  gives  evidence  of  a  weak  and 
imperfect  faith  which  needs  careful  cultivation, 
before  it  reaches  that  perfection  which  enables 
us  to  say,  "  Eight eous  and  true  are  thy  judg- 
ments thou  king  of  saints,"  or  to  express  our- 
selves in  the  words  "  It  is  the  Lord,  let  him  do 
what  seemeth  him  good" — 1  Sam.  iii.,  18. 

But  why  it  may  be  asked  should  such  a  con- 
dition be  more  abhorrent  to  the  Archdeacon 
with  reference  to  the  next  world  than  a  similar 
condition  with  reference  to  this^  ?  How  many  are 
sufferers  here  both  in  body  and  soul  to  the  end 
of  their  days  ?  And  wh}'  should  they  not  be 
there  ?  Or  even  if  the  contemplation  of  a  life^  of 
suffering  be  abhorrent  to  his  mind,  does  this 
destroy  its  reality  ?     Does  this  abhorrence  of  it 

wipe  out  its  existence,  and  prove  it  to  be  the 
groundless  creation  of  a  vivid  imagination  ?  I 
trow  not,  and  if  not,  then  we  hold  that  it  will 
be  of  equally  little  avail  to  weaken  the  force  of 
evidence  for  the  reality  of  that  which  is  to  come, 
to  quench  the  fires  of  G-e henna,  and  persuade 
men  that  it  is  but  the  airy  phantom  of  a  dre  am. 

The  next  point  to  be  noted  is  "If  the  doctrine 
of  endless  torment  be  true,  it  is  incredible  that 
there  should  be  no  trace  of  it  in  the  entire  Old 
.  Testament." 

It  seems  scarcely  credible  that  the  Archdeacon 
should  make  such  a  statement  as  this  which 
denies  that  there  is  any  reference  to  the  subject 
in  the  first  covenant  of  works  or  in  the  judicial 
sentence,  "  Thou  shall  surely  die,"  or  in  the 
Psalms,  the  Proverbs  or  the  Prophets.  But  as 
already  shown,  there  is  such  reference.  The  idea 
underlies  the  whole  of  the  Old  Testament  Econ' 
omy.  Of  this  death,  the  visible  death  of  the  body 
is  the  visible  sign  and  seal,  and  that  the 
patriarchs  so  understood  it,  is  implied  in  the 
emphatic  repetition  of  the  significant  declaration 
"  and  he  died." 

But  strange  to  say  the  Archdeacon  objects  to 
G-en.  iii.  15,  as  supporting  the  orthodox  view.  He 
asks  "  how  can  this  be,  if  Satan  triumphs  by  gain- 
ing millions  to  be  his  slaves  "  ?  The  answer  is 
Grod  reveals  the  fact,  and  if  it  be  not  understood, 
Faith  does  not  press  the  question,  how.     But  to 

■     -  56  -^'       '■'-■^/- 

most  minds  there  is  no  difficulty  as  to  the  "  how  " 
of  the  matter,  if  they  accept  an  illustration  from 
human  victories .  The  greater  the  number  of 
captives,  the  greater  the  proof  of  the  victory. 
Satan  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  a  rival  conqueror 
to  the  Saviour,  but  as  being  himself  subjected 
with  his  captives  to  the  irre;^  istible  will  of  the 
Son  of  Man.  Victory  does  not  imply  the  loyalty 
of  the  conquered,  nor  does  the  captivity  of  the 
conquered  reflect  upon  the  reality  of  the  victor's 

The  Archdeacon  cites  G-en.  xii.  3,  which  says, 
"  In  thee  shall  all  the  families  of  the  earth  be 
blessed."  Yes,  blessed ;  but  not  necessarily 
saved.  Moreover  it  is  written  "families"  or 
"  nations"  (Gren.  xviii.  18),  not  all  the  individuals 
of  each  family  or  nation. 

He  refers  also  to  Psalm  ciii.  9 — "  He  will  not 
always  be  chiding,  neither  keepeth  he  his  anger 
for  ever.  He  retaineth  not  his  anger  for  ever, 
because  he  delighteth  in  mercy."  This  is  the 
language  of  the  believer  who  accepts  and  rejoices 
in  God's  method  of  putting  away  sin  through 
Christ.  "  He  hath  not  dealt  with  us  after  our 
sins,"  and  "  as  far  as  the  east  is  from  the  west» 
so  far  hath  he  put  away  our  iniquity."  This 
therefore,  has  no  reference  to  the  future.  It  is 
not  (as  the  context  proves)  an  absolute,  but  a 
relative  truth.  While  we  may  affirm  of  God's  own 
people  that  he  is  not  angry  with  them  for  ever, 

^ _  '  61        ^'  ■■■■: '  :.  ■'  '.:■  ■     , 

because  they  have  complied  with  his  will,  we 
may  affirm  also  of  the  wicked  that  he  is  angry 
with  them  every  day. 

Psalm  cxxxix.  8.  "  If  I  make  my  bed  in  hell 
thou  art  there,"  yes,  he  is  there  to  condemn.  It 
does  not  say  that  he  is  there  to  save. 

Isaiah  Ivii.  16. — "  I  will  not  contend  for  ever, 
neither  will  I  be  always  wroth,  for  the  Spirit 
should  fail  before  me  and  the  souls  which  I  have 
made."  The  A  'chdeacaii  applies  this  to  the 
state  of  the  wicked  hereafter,  not  only  "without 
ground,  but  in  direct  opposition  to  the  context- 
It  is  expressly  said  of  the  "  humble  and  contrite 
ones  "  and  contrasts  their  state  with  that  of  the 
wicked.  It  concludes  with  the  words  "  The 
wicked  are  like  the  troubled  sea  w^hen  it  cannot 
rest,  whose  waters  cast  up  mire  and  dirt.  There 
is  no  peace  saith  my  Grod  to  the  wicked  "  !  ! 

Isaiah  xlix.  9. — "  That  thou  mayest  say  to  the 
prisoners, '  G-o  forth  ' ;  to  them  that  are  in  dark- 
ness show  yourselves."  Here  again  the  context 
points  out  the  misapplication.  This  is  a  prophecy 
of  the  release  of  spiritual  prisoners  during  the 
present  G-ospel  dispensation.  It  is  similar  to 
the  passage  quoted  by  the  Saviour  in  the  syna- 
gogue in  Gralilee,  of  which  he  said  :  "  This  day 
is  this  Scripture  fulfilled  in  your  ears."  There 
is  not  the  shadow  of  a  proof  to  show  that  it 
refers  to  post  Grospel  times  during  which  the 
door  of  deliverance  will  be  shut. 

Hosea  vi.  1. — "  Come  and  let  us  return  unta 
the  Lord,  for  He  hath  torn,  and  he  will  heal 
us.  lie  hath  smitten  and  he  will  bind  us  up.'^ 
The  present  is  the  day  of  healing.  The  Arch- 
deacon must  show  that  the  passage  applies  to 

a  future  state.  He  must  show  also  that  in  that 
future  state  sinners  will  be  ready  to  say  "  Come 
and  let  us  return  unto  the  Lord."  This  is  a 
necessary  condition  of  being  healed  in  any  state. 

Hosea  xiv.  4. — "  I  will  heal  their  backsliding, 
I  will  love  them  freely."  Yes,  if  they  return  ; 
but  the  incorrigibly  wicked  will  have  no  desire 
to  return. 

John  i.  29. — "  The  Lamb  which  taketh  away 
the  sin  of  the  world."  He  has  taken  it  away ; 
but  redemption  does  not  imply  salvation  here, 
much  less  hereafter.  Taking  awdy  the  sin  of 
the  world  is  not  obliterating  it  from  the  universe. 

John  iii.  1^. — "  God  sent  not  his  Son  into  the 
world  to  condemn  the  world,  but  that  the  world 
through  him  might  be  saved."  Certainly; 
because  the  world  was  already  condemned — As 
certainly  he  came  that  the  world  might  be  saved 
— but  what  if  the  world  would  not  be  saved  ? 
"  I  would,"  said  the  Son  of  Man  to  Jerusalem, 
"  but  ye  would  not ;  therefore,  your  house  is 
left  unto  you  desolate." 

John  iii.  35. — "  The  Father  loveth  the  Son, 
and  hath  put  all  things  into  his  hand."  Yes  ; 
but  it  does  not  follow  that  all  the  things  given 


into  his  hand — e.g.,  Jerusalem,  would  be  saved 
from  destruction.  - 

•  1  John  iv.  14. — "  The  Father  sent  the  Son  ta 
be  the  Saviour  of  the  world."  The  Archdeacon 
translates  it  the  Saviour  of  the  universe,  but  the 
word  is  "  Kosmos,"  and  therefore  means  the 
world — not  the  universe. 

John  xii.  32. — "  I,  if  I  be  lifted  up,  will  draw 
all  men  unto  me."  Yes  ;  but  not  necessarily 
with  saving  effect.  All  men  are  undoubtedly 
drawn  nearer  to  Grod  and  Christ,  by  the  satis- 
faction made  upon  the  cross.  The  guilt  and 
demerit  of  sin  are  removed,  and  the  door  of 
salvation  is  npw  open,'  but  it  does  not  follow 
that  all  will  therefore  enter  in.  Or  the  mean- 
ing may  be  "  I  will  draw  all  nations  unto  me 
(G-en.  xviii.  18)  as  opposed  to  the  single  nation 
of  the  Jews."  In  either  case  it  does  not  imply 
universal  salvation. 

Luke  XII.  48. — "  He  shall  be  beaten  with  few 
stripes."  Yes  ;  but  he  shall  be  beaten,  and  there 
is  nothing  to  prove  that  "  few  in  number  "  means 
"  short  in  duration." 

1  John  ii.  2. — "A  propitiation  for  our  sins,  and 
not  for  ours  only,  but  also  for  the  sins  of  the 
whole  world."  Yes,  a  propitiation  for  them,  but 
not  necessarily  a  forgiveness  of  them. 

Acts  iii.  21. — "The  restitution  of  all  things."^ 
Yes* ;  the  new  heavens  and  the  new  earth  (Eev. 
xxi.  1).    To  refer  it  to  the  restitution  of  all  men 

would  be  to  make  G-od  contradict  himself,  and 
we  may  not  expound  one  part  of  Scripture  so 
that  it  shall  be  repugnant  to  the  other. 

Eph.  i.  10. — "That  he  might  gather  together 
in  one  all  things  in  Christ,  which  are  in  heaven 
and  which  are  in  earth.  This  is  limited  by  the 
expressions  "  in  Christ,"  "  in  Heaven  "  and  "  in 
Earth."  There  is  nothing  to  show  that  the 
gathering  will  extend  to  things  in  Hell. 

Phil.  ii.  10,  11. — "  That  at  the  name  of  Jesus 
every  knee  should  bow,  of  things  in  Heaven  and 
things  in  earth,  and  things  under  the  earth." 
This  does  refer  to  things  under  the  earth ;  but 
it  is  under  the  earth  they  bow,  and  hot  in 

Col.  i.  19,  20. — "  By  him  to  reconcile  all  things 
to  himself,  whether  they  be  things  in  earth  or 
things  in  heaven."  Yes  ;  but  you  cannot  extend 
the  reconciliation  to  things  in  Hell. 

Eom.  viii.  19-24.. — "  The  earnest  expectation 
of  the  creature  waiteth  for  the  manifestation  of 
of  the  sons  of  G-od."  Yes  ;  but  it  says  nothing 
of  the  manifestation  of  those  who  are  not  the 
sons  of  Grod. 

Rom.  V.  18. — "The  free  gift  came  upon  all 
men  unto  justification  of  life."  Yes  ;  but  the 
"  all "  is  limited  in  this  verse  by  the  context. 
This  is  quite  common  in  Scripture,  e.g.,  "  all  men 
came  unto  him,"  "  all  the  world  should  be 
taxed,"  "  allJudea  and  allJerusalem,"  these  must 



from  the  nature  of  each  case  be  limited.  Such 
limitation  is  always  implied  when  other  Scrip- 
tures referring  to  the  same  subject  require  it,  e.g*., 
— It  is  everywhere  taught  that  faith  is  necessary 
to  justification.  "When,  therefore,  it  is  said 
that  '  all  are  justified,' the  meaning  must  be  "all 
believers,"  because  it  ie  vrritten,  '  By  him  all  that 
believe  are  justified.' "  So  here,  "  all  "  cannot 
be  taken  in  an  absolute  sense.  The  man  Christ 
Jesus,  a;t  least,  must  be  excepted,  and  therefore 
in  the  light  of  the  context,  the  meaning  is,  all 
connected  with  Christ,  are  they  upon  whom  the 
gift  came. 

Eom.  xi.  32. — "  G-od  hath  concluded  all  in  un- 
belief that  he  might  have  mercy  upon  all."  But 
what  if  they  would  not  accept  the  mercy  ? 

Rom.  xiv.  9. — "  That  he  might  be  the  Lord 
both  of  the  dead  and  the  living."  Therefore  the 
dead  must  continue  that  he  may  be  Lord  of  the 

1  Cor.  XV.  22. — "  As  in  Adam  all  die,  so  in 
Christ  shall  all  be  made  alive."  Universal 
death  is  the  result  of  Adam's  conduct.  So  the 
general  resurrection  is  the  result  of  the  Saviour's 
action,  but  the  general  resurrection  does  not 
imply  universal  salvation- 

1  Cor.  XV.  25. — "  He  must  reign  till  he  hath 
put  all  things  under  his  feet."  Yes  ;  but  under 
his  feet,  is  not,  exalted  to  heaven. 

1  Cor.  XV.  26. — "  The  last  enemv  that  shall  be 

62  > 

destroyed  is  death."  Yes,  but  destruction  is  not 
extinction  (see  page  51.)  The  word  rendered 
destroyed  means,  "  rendered  powerless  to  harm." 

1  Cor.  XV.  28.—"  That  God  may  be  all  in  all." 
Yes,  when  the  Devil,  and  Death  and  Hades  are 
cast  out,  and  cast  into  the  lake  of  fire.  (Rev. 
XX.  11-14.)  '       ^ 

1.  Tim.  ii.  4. — "  Who  willeth  all  men  to  be 
saved.  Yes  ;  but  he  does  not  obtain  all  that  he 
wills,  as  the  cross  of  Calvary  proves.  Matt, 
xxvi.  39. 

1  Tim.  iv.  10. — "  God,  who  is  the  Saviour  of 
all  men,  specially  of  those  that  believe."  Words 
which  draw  a  clear  distinction  between  the 
manner  in  which  he  is  the  Saviour  of  those 
who  believe  and  those  who  do  not  believe.  In 
him  salvation  is  possible  to  those  who  do  not 
believe,  during  the  present  season  only,  but 
salvation  is  actual  to  those  who  believe." 

1  Tim.  ii.  6. — "  A  ransom  for  all."  Yes,  but 
not  accepted  by  all. 

Titus  ii.  11-12. — "  The  grace  of  God  is  saving 
to  all  men."  The  passage  may  also  be  translated 
"The  grace  of  God  hath  appeared  to  all  men, 
bringing  salvation."  But  accepting  the  ordinary 
translation,  it  is  true  in  a  possible,  not  in  an 
actual,  sense — simply  because  it  would  make 
God  contradict  himself 

Heb.  ii.  14. — "  That  he  might  destroy  him  that 
had  the  power  of  death,   that  is,  the   devil." 


Destroy  means  to  bring  to  nought,   to  render 
powerless — it  does  not  imply  extinction. 

Heb.  ii.  8. — "  Thou  hast  put  all  things  in  sub- 
jection under  his   feet."     Yes ;    but   universal 
.  subjection  does  not  imply  universal  salvation. 

Heb.  ii.  9. — "  That  he  should  taste  death  for 
every  man."  Universal  redemption  is  taught 
here,  not  universal  salvation. 

Rev.  V.  13. — "Every  creature  which  is  in 
.  heaven,  and  on  the  earth,  and  under  the  earth, 
and  such  as  are  in  the  sea,  and  all  that  are  in 
them  I  heard  saying,  "  Blessing,  and  honour,  and 
glory,  and  power,  etc."  Yes  ;  but  as  before,  this 
does  not  extend  to  things  in  hell. 

Eev.  xxi.  4-5. — "  Grod  shall  wipe  away  all 
tears  from  their  eyes."  Yes  ;  but  it  is  from  their 
eyes,  viz.,  the  eyes  of  the  saved ;  "  and  there 
shall  be  no  more  death  among  them  ;  neither 
any  more  pain."  Nothing  here  referring  to 
those  in  hell. 

Rev.  xxii.  3. — "  And  there  shall  be  no  more 
curse " — among  his  servants,  as  the  context 

^,  Rev.  XX.  14. — "  And  death  and  hell  were  cast 
into  the  lake  of  fire."  Yes ;  cast  out  of  the 
earth,  but  not  therefore  extinguished. 

Here  the  texts  end.  They  teach  universal 
redemption,  but  give  no  countenance  to  uni- 
versal salvation.  The  Archdeacon,  however, 
asks   again  whether  the  predicted  triumph  of 


Christ,  and  the  universality  of  his  kingdom  are 
consistent  with  the  popular  doctrine  that  only 
the  few  are  to  be  saved,  and  we  answer,  they  must 
be,  provided  the  popular  doctrine  is  based  on 
Christ's  own  words.  For  proof  that  it  is  so  based, 
it  is  only  needful  to  quote  again  Luke  xiii.  24 
where  it  is  written,  that  our  Lord  testified, 
saying,  "Many,  I  say  unto  you,  will  seek  to 
enter  in  and  shall  not  be  able." 

But  we  answer  again,  the  question  is  not 
whether  few  or  many  shall  be  saved,  but 
whether  there  are  any  at  all  who  shall  not  be 
s  aved.  The  orthodox  position  would  be  estab- 
lished, if  it  could  be  proved  that  no  more 
than  one  only  had  made  himself  an  heir  of 
everlasting  destrviction,  and  that  there  is  one, 
at  least,  who  shall  reach  this  unenviable  des- 
tinction  seems  clear  from  what  is  said  of  the 
"  Son  of  perdition." 

Even  the  Archdeacon  himself  seems  un- 
willingly to  admit  that  there  are  some  who  are 
in  this  unhappy  condition.  He  frankly  says 
that  he  is  unable  to  adopt  the  Universalist  view 
because,  he  says,  there  are  one  or  two  passages— 
which  seem  to  make  it  unwise  to  speak  dog- 
matically on  a  matter  which  God  has  not  clearly 
revealed.  He  does  not  tell  us  what  these  pass- 
ages are — a  course  which  is  hardly  consistent 
with  fairness,  since  he  has  given  such  publicity 
to  texts  on  the  other  side.  But  I  wish  to  observe 


that  by  this  admission,  he  manifestly  gives  up  the 
whole  question.  He  acknowledges  his  position  to 
be  unproved,  as  the  very  title  of  his  book  indicates. 
Here  then  is  a  strong  confirmation  of  the  ortho- 
dox view.  If  Archdeacon  Farrar  confesses  his 
inability  to  disprove  it,  there  must  be  strong 
reasons  for  believing  it  to  be  true.  We  recognize 
them  in  what  Christ  says:  "They  shall  not  see 
life"  ;  "  They  shall  not  be  able  to  enter  in." 

On  these  two  statements  alone,  I  am  willing  to 
lean  the  whole  controversy.  "  Hath  he  said,  and 
shall  he  not  do  it.  Hath  he  spoken,  and  shall 
he  not  bring  it  to  pass."  Men  may  now,  as  of 
old,  prefer  to  listen  to  the  voice  of  the  charmer 
who,  with  a  plausible  duplicity  ,^nd  devilish 
malignity,  endeavours,  through  means  of  some 
weak,  but  otherwise  worthy  agent,  to  persuade 
them  that  the  words  of  the  living  G-od,  the  great 
Creator  "  Thou  shalt  surely  die  "  bear  a  mean- 
ing the  very  opposite  of  that  which  they  were 
intended  signify.  But  as  surely  as  they  allow 
themselves  to  be  influenced  by  that  deceptive 
voice,  so  surely  shall  they  taste  the  bitterness  of 
their  choice,  as  our  first  parents  did ;  and  unless 
they  lay  hold  by  faith  on  that  eternal  life,  which 
is  so  graciously  offered  to  them  and  all  mankind 
in  Christ,  "  without  doubt,  they  shall  perish  ever-